PRIVATE BUSINESS

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
	That Andrew Stunell be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Adrian Sanders be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: May I thank all hon. Members for their kind messages and the Officers of the House, members of staff and members of the public who were so kind to me during my absence? It is very appropriate that I should come back to call questions to the Secretary of State for Health.

Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Vacancies

Evan Harris: What estimate she has made of the number of vacancies for (a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) professions allied to medicine in the NHS, including posts filled by agency or locum staff.

Patricia Hewitt: On behalf of the whole House, may I say how delighted we are to welcome you back, Mr. Speaker? I am sure that you were in the very safe hands of the NHS, even if it was in Scotland rather than in England.
	The number of vacancies for doctors, nurses and qualified allied health professionals is the lowest for three years. In March 2005, the number of vacancies for doctors was about 1,200, for nurses about 5,800 and for qualified allied health professionals about 1,700.

Evan Harris: May I, too, welcome you back to full health at Health questions, Mr. Speaker, and, I hope, to full health answers?
	At a time when the NHS is having trouble filling the thousands of vacancies that the Secretary of State described, is it sensible that up and down the country it should be making redundant front-line doctors, nurses and ancillary staff, including the threat hanging over hundreds of jobs in Oxfordshire? Will the Secretary of State recognise that the health service should not have to choose between front-line patient care and balancing the books this year? Will she give it more time?

Patricia Hewitt: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that there are now 2,700 more nurses in the Thames valley alone than there were in 1997 and significantly more GPs, consultants and, I am delighted to say, dentists. Against that background, a small number of hospitals, including the Radcliffe—which, incidentally, has one of its lowest-ever vacancy rates—are having to consider making a small number of staff redundant.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we want every hospital to use the most efficient and effective ways of looking after patients. Where that means, for instance, more day case surgery or lower average lengths of stay, with better patient care but fewer hospital beds and therefore fewer hospital staff but more staff in the community, I hope that he, like me, will support hospitals in making those decisions, because they are good for patients as well as good value for money.

Kevin Barron: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if today's media reports were true and we were to lose 500 health workers jobs a week for the next six months, hundreds of thousands more people would still be working in the NHS than nine years ago?

Patricia Hewitt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have more than 200,000 more staff in the NHS, including 78,000 more nurses, than we had in 1997. Reports of thousands of job losses are nonsensical. As hospitals become more effective and use more modern medical technology, more services are being provided in the community—for instance, looking after patients with chronic heart disease in their own homes—slashing the number of emergency admissions, which I hope all Members support. Where that means fewer staff in acute wards in some hospitals but more staff in the community, that is the right thing to do when it delivers better patient care with better value for money.

Shailesh Vara: Given that many primary care trusts are not replacing jobs to ensure that employment numbers are kept low, will the Secretary of State undertake to publish regular employment figures for trusts so that we know exactly where job losses are occurring?

Patricia Hewitt: We publish annual work force survey figures and we shall shortly publish the latest figures so that we can track exactly those changes. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues need to decide whether they support a more efficient NHS and whether they support more services being delivered in the community—in community hospitals, health centres and patients' own homes—because that is clearly what the public want and what we will deliver.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our NHS would not function if it were not for the outstanding contribution of people from abroad? Does she share my concern about reports that trainee doctors who have come to the UK in good faith are having their training interrupted by new visa regulations? What is she doing about that, particularly in terms of discussions with the Home Office?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, for many decades, the NHS has been indebted to staff from abroad. The Home Office has recently announced a change to the arrangements for the immigration status of doctors who come from abroad to complete their training, but we have put in place transitional arrangements to protect doctors who, for instance, may have come here with three years' leave but are taking part in a specialist registrar training programme that may well last five years. The transitional arrangements will ensure that they can complete that training programme. However, my officials are meeting the Indian high commission, which has expressed concern, and the British Medical Association this afternoon to find out whether anything further needs to be done to clarify the arrangements, particularly the transitional arrangements, but the fundamental reason why we can make those changes is that we have been successful in training far more of our own doctors and nurses in this country.

Patrick Cormack: In endorsing the Secretary of State's warm welcome to you, Sir, may I ask her whether she is aware that, when I was first elected to the House, almost every one of my constituents was served by a GP who provided an after-hours service. Not one of them is now provided with such a service. Is that progress?

Patricia Hewitt: That choice was made by GPs and many others. When we negotiated the new contract for GPs, one of their main concerns was that they should be able to choose whether they provided out-of-hours services themselves or whether they left it to the local primary care trust to make other arrangements. As a result of the new contract, we have ensured that GPs are doing more preventive work than ever before. Indeed, thousands of people are alive and well today as a direct result of that contract, and we are now ensuring from this month onwards that more of GPs' pay is directly linked to patients' satisfaction with GP services, including access to appointments.

Andrew Lansley: May I, on behalf of Conservative Members, express our warm appreciation of your being back in the Chair again, Mr. Speaker? Welcome back. You are indeed a testament to the quality of care in the NHS, and we are delighted to see you.
	This morning, the Prime Minister has been talking about the fulfilment of the Government's NHS plan, one of the central aspects of which was to recruit more doctors and nurses. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain to NHS staff how it can make sense for 8,000 posts to have been lost in NHS hospitals over the past eight weeks, with thousands more job losses to come, not according to us, but according to what is termed a senior source in the Department of Health this morning?

Patricia Hewitt: The figures that the hon. Gentleman is so fond of quoting are simply rubbish. What we are seeing in many hospitals, as they seek to become even more efficient and effective, is a very significant reduction in the use of agency staff, which, as any nurse will say, is an extremely expensive and inefficient way to organise their ward rotas. As hospitals do more day-case surgery and as they work with PCTs to reduce emergency admission rates, they need fewer acute beds and therefore, in some cases, fewer staff in hospitals, but they are achieving that by reducing their agency staffing and by not filling vacancies in some cases. Very few hospitals indeed will need to consider redundancies, although some may now be consulting on them. That is enormously worrying for the staff involved, and everything will be done to keep the redundancies to a minimum, but the hon. Gentleman needs to tell us whether he is committed to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Lansley.

Andrew Lansley: We are committed to a successful NHS, which can be achieved only if we have doctors and nurses providing services to patients. Whether they are in hospital or in primary care, those who are recruited to the NHS—doctors, nurses and physiotherapists—clearly have a reasonable expectation that, after their education and training, they should find posts. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why expensively educated and trained junior doctors cannot find posts; why, in the west midlands, 2,000 out of 4,000 nurses leaving training cannot find posts; and why more than half of the physiotherapists who left training last year could not find posts anywhere in the NHS?

Patricia Hewitt: More staff are employed in the NHS than ever before—thousands more than under the Conservative Government. Vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are down—in the case of nurses, to their lowest level since records began. Of course that means that, for some new graduates, it is harder to find jobs than it used to be. That is because there are so many more nurses and doctors in employment and considerably fewer vacancies.
	We come back to the issue of whether we are going to support hospitals in becoming more effective and efficient and using fewer agency staff. West Hertfordshire, for instance, had a deficit last year of £18 million and an agency staffing bill of £17 million. The Government think that it makes sense to support that hospital in reorganising its permanent—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the right hon. Lady.

Royal Hospital, Sunderland

Chris Mullin: What plans she has to visit the Royal hospital, Sunderland, to discuss its staffing and management.

Liam Byrne: There are no current plans to visit Royal hospital, Sunderland, but if my hon. Friend were to liaise with the chair of the trust I would be happy to consider an invitation.

Chris Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that City Hospitals Sunderland is one of only seven trusts to have retained its three-star rating for five successive years? It was the first foundation trust in the north-east, it is well managed, it meets most of its targets, and yet no one can recall a time when our hospital had a visit from a Secretary of State—although we have had a visit from the odd junior Minister. Will the Minister be kind enough to ask the Secretary of State to pay us a visit?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that his trust has an enormous amount to be proud of. In particular, I congratulate Gillian Reay on winning this year's child nurse of the year. In 1997, 1,300 people had to wait longer than six months for treatment at his hospital: now, that figure is zero. There is a new cataract surgery, a new cardiac unit and a new urgent care centre in his constituency. I observe with some interest that his strategic health authority predicted that it would finish the year not just in balance but in surplus.

Stephen O'Brien: When the Secretary of State promised to listen to staff in our NHS, did she expect to go to them or them to come to her? She has managed to visit no more than an average of about one hospital a month. Would Sunderland not be a good place for her and her hapless Minister to start making amends and to hear directly from staff about job losses and the relentless pressures that they are under because of the gross financial incompetence of her Department?

Liam Byrne: When the political history of this programme of reform is written, it will be seen that the Secretary of State undertook the largest ever consultation in relation to the development of reforms, which is why the White Paper on health that was published in January was so widely welcomed not just by the public but by the NHS as a whole.

Dentistry

David Wright: How many dentists are in training; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: There are currently approximately 3,350 home and European dental students in dental schools in England. By 2010, as a result of our current programme to expand dental training and open a new dental school, there will be more than 4,000 dental students—a 25 per cent. increase over the number in training in 1997.

David Wright: That is extremely good news. How are we going to communicate that information more effectively to our constituents? A lot of misleading information is put out, particularly by the Conservative party, about dentistry in local areas. As more NHS dentists go into communities, how are we going to communicate that? Will the Minister join me in thanking the Telford Journal for its excellent campaign to promote the 8,000 extra NHS dentistry places available to residents in my constituency?

Rosie Winterton: I am happy to congratulate the Telford Journal on helping to communicate some of the good news about dentistry in my hon. Friend's area. After all, despite widespread predictions that there was going to be a mass exodus of dentists from the NHS, 96 per cent. of NHS activity has been continued. In his area, about 41 out of 42 contracts have been signed by dentists and the NHS has already recommissioned the 1 per cent. of services that were lost. His PCT has done an excellent job over the past two years in taking advantage of the £3.5 million extra that has gone into the area to make sure that access to NHS dentistry is being improved.

Iris Robinson: May I, too, extend my good wishes to you, Mr. Speaker on your return to the Chair?
	Does the Minister have any information on the number of dentists who have left the NHS, and what advice can she give people who cannot get on to dental waiting lists?

Rosie Winterton: Approximately 1,000 contracts have not been signed or taken up by dentists, but all the evidence is that they tend to be single-handed dentists with a small number of NHS patients. However, 8,300 contracts have been signed, and nine out of 10 dentists have signed up to the new contract. In future, the different ways of working, combined with the £315 million extra investment in NHS dentistry, will improve access to NHS dentistry a great deal, and deal with the problems that were created by the previous Administration with the unpopular contract and the closure of dental schools.

Brian Iddon: My constituency is not exactly rich in dentists, and the children's teeth are some of the worst in the country, so I was surprised to receive a complaint the other day from an orthodontist who is willing to set up a practice in my constituency but cannot obtain NHS backing. What advice can my hon. Friend give that dentist and others who find it difficult to set up a practice in the national health service?

Rosie Winterton: If the orthodontist had practised during the reference period, when we gave an estimate of earnings under the contract, they would have been offered the same contract. They would also be able to treat all the patients that they were treating at that time and finish the treatment. There is a particular problem for orthodontists, for whom primary care trusts could not plan properly under the previous system. Under the new system, with local commissioning and the guidance that we have provided, PCTs are expected to join together to ensure proper provision for orthodontic treatment in, for example, a particular strategic health authority.

Alternative Medicine

David Tredinnick: When the new joint working group on herbal medicine, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine will begin its work; what (a) support and (b) funding the Government will provide for this work; and what the expected time scale is for the process.

Jane Kennedy: We have appointed a chair for that working group, and are currently seeking nominations for its members. I expect the group to hold its first meeting this summer, and discussions on funding requirements for the 2006–07 financial year continue.

David Tredinnick: May I welcome you back, Mr. Speaker? I note that the right hon. Lady did not provide a figure, and there is concern among practitioners and groups that there will not be enough money to conduct a thorough review. If she does not extend the review, many groups, such as aromatherapists and naturopaths who use herbal medicine under section 12(1) of the Medicines Act 1968, will be excluded from using those herbs if a register is drawn up and they have not been considered? Will she look at that very seriously?

Jane Kennedy: I will do so, as I take the issue seriously. I am confident that we can deliver regulation of those practitioners, and the working group will look at that proposal. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have funded the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health to help a range of complementary therapies, such as those that he mentioned, to develop voluntary professional self-regulation schemes.

Cancelled Operations

Helen Goodman: How many planned operations were cancelled in 2005–06 as a result of winter pressures on the NHS; and what the figure was in 1996–97.

Patricia Hewitt: Since we launched our 10-year plan for investment and reform in 2000, last-minute cancellations in the last three months of the year went down by more than 21 per cent., while elective admissions increased by nearly 9 per cent.

Helen Goodman: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. In the County Durham and Darlington Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, control of cancellations has been accompanied by a reduction in waiting lists to achieve the target set by the Government. Does she agree that that is testimony to the benefits of the doubling of spending by the Labour Government?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a result of our investment and our reforms, we have just come through one of the coldest winters with none of the beds crises that we all remember so vividly from the winter of 1996–97. In addition, more people are being operated on in our hospitals and we have succeeded in bringing down the maximum waiting time to just six months for items such as hip replacements, for which people used to have wait two years or more under the Conservatives. That is an enormous tribute to NHS staff and to the backing that the Government have been able to give them.

Stephen Dorrell: As the Secretary of State seems to have mislaid the statistics for which her hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked, may I remind her that the hospital activity statistics published by her Department show that in the last four quarters for which I was responsible as Secretary of State, the number of operations cancelled at short notice was 52,000 and in the last four quarters for which the same statistics are available the figure was 65,000? Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever the statistics, the important consideration is that both those figures are too high and that the real question, at a time when hospital deficits are increasing the pressure on NHS trusts, is what the Secretary of State is going to put in place to ensure that the statistics for the next four quarters are lower than either the previous four quarters or the last four quarters for which I was responsible?

Patricia Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman fails to mention how many fewer operations were carried out when he was Secretary of State for Health. Nevertheless, he raises an important question. My answer is that since 2003 we have put in place a guarantee to patients that if their operation is cancelled at the last minute, they will be given a fresh date for it within 28 days and that if their local NHS hospital cannot guarantee that, they will have the choice of going to any other hospital either in the NHS or in a private sector hospital paid for by the NHS. That has significantly reduced the number of cancelled operations and I have no doubt that, despite having to take some difficult decisions to restore financial balance in the NHS, we will continue to see further improvements in patient care over the next 12 months.

Dentistry (South Derbyshire)

Mark Todd: If she will make a statement on access to dental health services in South Derbyshire.

Rosie Winterton: The dental reforms that were introduced on 1 April will enable the local NHS in South Derbyshire to improve access to dentistry. The PCTs in southern Derbyshire now have dedicated local budgets to commission dental services, including an additional £250,000 to expand local provision, and they have already received a number of expressions of interest to provide new services.

Mark Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but draw her attention to the fact that South Derbyshire—and Swadlincote, in particular—is one of the fastest growing areas in the country, so the pressures on dentistry are much more acute than in other parts of the country. The recent contractual reform has not been followed by a complete take-up, so my hon. Friend may find that the sum available is insufficient to guarantee even the continuing commitment of dentists who have already contracted but have queries about their contracts.

Rosie Winterton: I was glad to see that in the Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire PCT there has been 100 per cent. take-up of the new contract. In the Greater Derby PCT there have been two rejections out of a total of 22. That certainly demonstrates that dentists have looked into the terms and conditions on offer and have realised that it amounts to a good deal. I am aware that in the particular area that my hon. Friend mentioned, the PCT is already putting out to tender a contract to provide three or four dentists in a specific practice, but I cannot comment on all the individual contract negotiations. I believe, however, that the outcome will be an improved service in that area.

Andrew Murrison: We know from an internal Labour party briefing note that was leaked last week that there has been an 8 per cent. reduction in the number of dentists who are willing to undertake NHS work in the strategic health authority that is responsible for South Derbyshire. In other words, fewer dentists are doing less NHS dentistry in South Derbyshire—what a triumph for the new contract. Will the Minister say how many of South Derbyshire's remaining NHS dentists have signed up on a qualified "in dispute" basis—in other words, how many more of them may quit in the months ahead? How much success has there been in reallocating any unused units of dental activity in the SHA that covers South Derbyshire?

Rosie Winterton: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not apologised for giving the impression that there was going to be a mass exodus from the NHS. Time after time, his party stated that that was the absolute truth, but it has not proved to be the case. Nine out of 10 dentists have signed up—it is true that some of them have signed up "in dispute". In the Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire PCT, for example, four dentists are in dispute, but 100 per cent. of dentists have signed up. On units of dental activity, many PCTs have already reached the levels of units of dental activity that were set for them, because of the new system for commissioning dentistry. On top of that, we expect many of the disputes to be resolved by the local resolution procedure, before perhaps going to the NHS Litigation Authority, which is the last resort. The hon. Gentleman should not only thank the dentists who have signed up—as I have said, there are many more of them than he predicted—but pay tribute to the hard work by local PCTs in ensuring that there is now better access to NHS dentistry and that the reforms have taken place in the way we planned.

Barnet PCT

Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on the financial position of Barnet primary care trust.

Jane Kennedy: For 2005–06 at month six, Barnet primary care trust is forecasting to break even.

Andrew Dismore: I can tell my right hon. Friend that Barnet PCT was able to break even—in fact, it achieved a small underspend. Given that achievement, the local community feels hard done by, because some £12 million has been top-sliced off this year's budget, which means less progress on waiting times and on new initiatives, such as the spirometry service at Edgware hospital. What guarantees can my right hon. Friend give that the money will be returned, and when will it be returned?

Jane Kennedy: The many NHS organisations, such as Barnet PCT, that have not only broken even, but created a surplus while maintaining excellent levels of service will receive the funding back in the following year. The SHAs will be working with health organisations in my hon. Friend's area in north London to ensure that that repayment takes place.

Chlamydia

Laura Moffatt: What steps the NHS is taking to detect and treat chlamydia among 16 to 24-year-olds.

Caroline Flint: Welcome back, Mr. Speaker. The national chlamydia screening programme has been rolled out successfully to 25 per cent. of PCTs, and we expect to see national screening in all other areas during 2006, which is well ahead of the 2007 target. We have also contracted Boots the Chemist to evaluate the potential of retail pharmacies as chlamydia screening venues. Screening started on 14 November 2005, and the two-year pilot will be independently evaluated by TNS Healthcare.

Laura Moffatt: It is good to see you back in your place, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to hear about the work on chlamydia, which leads to so many heartbreaking stories involving women and infertility. Does this House accept that men must also take responsibility, because only 17 per cent. of men turn up for chlamydia screening? What is her Department going to do to improve those figures, so that we can all take responsibility for that damaging condition?

Caroline Flint: Clearly, chlamydia is an important issue. It is a sexually transmitted infection that leads to ectopic pregnancies and is a major cause of infertility. All men and women, inside and outside this House, should take it very seriously. My hon. Friend makes an important point about men. We offer a world-class service in providing screening, which, unlike in other countries, is available for men and for women. We are trying to find settings where we can reach men and make them aware of their responsibilities in this regard. We have screening services at colleges, prisons and military bases, and we are evaluating the number of men who use the Boots service. We are open to the reform and modernisation of services so that people can take forward their own responsibilities while we ensure that we provide a service that they can access.

Nadine Dorries: On Thursday, I met a GP who told me that he was embarrassed by how much money he has earned this year for working far fewer hours than he did last year. Does the Minister agree that if we had paid our GPs less and they had worked harder, funding would have been available for a national TV advertising campaign on the dangers of undetected chlamydia?

Caroline Flint: We will be resourcing a major national campaign on sexually transmitted infections, but it is important that that campaign and its timetable fit in with the development of services locally. I am pleased to say that of the 96 per cent. of people diagnosed with chlamydia in the second year of the programme, more than 75 per cent. were treated outside genito-urinary medicine clinics in GPs' surgeries and other health settings.

Sandra Gidley: The Minister mentioned GUM clinics. She will be aware that the symptoms of chlamydia are sometimes mild and transient. Does she share my concern that only 49 per cent. of people are able to access a GUM clinic within 48 hours and, if so, what is she planning to do about the problem?

Caroline Flint: That is a major target but it is also a challenge for the NHS. The latest figures show that some 51 per cent. of people access a clinic within the 48-hour target. It is clear that some areas are doing better than others. Over the past six months, I have spent some of my time looking at how different services are meeting that target, because it is very important that people who want to get treatment and advice can access those services. It is also clear that many services to do with sexually transmitted infections, abortion and contraception could be provided in other settings outside GUM clinics. That will help to meet the 48-hour access target.

Dentistry

Vera Baird: How many NHS dentists there are; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: The total number of GDS—general dental services—and PDS—personal dental services—dentists as at 31 March 2006 was 21,025; a 25 per cent. increase since 1997. The great majority of those dentists are now working under new NHS contracts. In the minority of cases where dentists have chosen not to take up a new contract, primary care trusts are successfully using the funding for these contracts to re-provide services using other dentists.

Vera Baird: Welcome back, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply and, obviously, we have gone round this block a little bit already. In Redcar, there are two PCTs. In Langbaurgh, 17 out of 17 practices have signed up; in Middlesbrough, 21 out of 22 have signed up, with others keen to expand to fill the gap that has been left. We have a 60 per cent. registration rate, so we are doing quite well. Some local dentists have asked me whether it is practical to conduct a review to ensure that, in six months' time, the new contract is delivering what is predicted. Given what has been said already, Redcar's signing-up rate is clearly out of kilter with the rest of the country, so were the media and the Tory Opposition wide of the mark?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. and learned Friend is right to congratulate the PCTs in her area on being so successful in negotiations with local dentists. As she suggests, that is not out of kilter with the signing-up rate in other areas. Many patients were unnecessarily worried by the actions of some dentists and dentists' organisations and of Opposition parties. People were told that there would be no NHS dentistry and were encouraged to think that they had to take out insurance provision such as Denplan. In fact, the changes that we have made will lead to improved access for patients and a better deal for dentists.

Douglas Hogg: May I remind the hon. Lady that of the 68 dental practices in Lincolnshire, only 38 have signed the new NHS contract to treat both adults and children, and that there are 115,000 individuals who do not have access to a dentist? Given that, will she reconsider her rejection of my previous proposal that her Department should pay private dental fees, subject to a cap, where no NHS dentist is available?

Rosie Winterton: I am aware that there have been long-standing problems in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's area, but we have also made available extra funding in order to assist with access problems. Our support team is continuing to work with local PCTs, and I know that some progress has been made in commissioning extra dentistry. Action taken by local PCTs includes recruitment from abroad, which has been quite successful, particularly recruitment from Spain. I remember visiting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's area and hearing about some of the actions that were being taken. The area is one with which we will continue to work closely to make sure that access improves.

Jeff Ennis: In Barnsley, 35 out of the 36 dental practices have signed the new contracts. However, at one dental practice, only one of the four dentists has signed a contract. What advice can the Minister offer to my constituents who find themselves without an NHS dentist, particularly in the short term?

Rosie Winterton: In the south Yorkshire area the sign-up rate has been about 99 per cent. Where individual dentists have not signed up, the PCTs, certainly in south Yorkshire, are already considering recommissioning dentistry from other dentists. There is no shortage of dentists who are coming forward to take more patients on to their lists. However, I have set up an implementation group to make sure that as the reforms bed down, we are able to iron out any difficulties that occur.

Richard Taylor: Can the Minister give us a global figure for the number of dentists who have signed the contract in dispute? Is it true that dentists who believe that the contract is undeliverable have been coerced into signing by threats that payment will be delayed?

Rosie Winterton: We gave dentists until 31 March to sign up to the new contract to ensure that the payments could go through, starting in May. To get the data on to the computer system, dentists had to make the decision by 31 March, when the new financial year started. There are areas where around 30 per cent. of dentists have signed in dispute. I have had meetings with representatives of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities and they are confident that many of those disputes can be resolved by the local resolution procedure. In some areas, sets of dentists all decided to sign in dispute, which has caused particular difficulties, but I am confident that through the work that PCTs are doing, they will be able to sort out many of the problems fairly quickly.

Eric Illsley: As my hon. Friend has just heard, the vast majority of dentists in the Barnsley area have signed up to the new NHS contract. However, the gap in finance for orthodontic provision is huge—something like £800,000—and in Barnsley we face orthodontic treatment waiting lists beginning at four or five years from now. Will my hon. Friend look again at the provision for orthodontic treatment in Barnsley?

Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friend knows, I have had considerable discussion about the position in his local PCT. As I said, we want to ensure that, in the longer term, all orthodontic treatment is provided under the index of need that we have put together so that everything offered on the NHS is clinically necessary. We will also have to consider a specialist approach to orthodontic treatment, which is extremely expensive and has, in a sense, grown in a haphazard fashion. We considered whether the surrounding PCTs in my hon. Friend's area would be interested in joining together to provide extra funding. As he knows, it has been agreed to pay for all the treatment that the specific orthodontist has started. The difficulty is what happens in the longer term. We will consider the matter in the implementation group, which includes orthodontists' representatives.

Audiology

Desmond Swayne: What assessment she has made of the impact on services of her policy on audiology waiting times.

Liam Byrne: The Department's policy on hearing aid services has focused on ensuring that the NHS provides modern digital hearing aids. It is for local commissioners to ensure that their populations benefit from those improvements, using the increasing resources that the Government have made available.

Desmond Swayne: A constituent was referred by his general practitioner to an audiologist on 16 January. On 16 March, he received confirmation of an appointment for August 2007. Given the age profile in my constituency, there is a significant danger that constituents will have an appointment with an undertaker before they get an appointment with an audiologist. Will audiology be included in the 18-week target?

Liam Byrne: Once upon a time, digital hearing aids cost £2,500 and were an impossible dream for most of the population; only the wealthiest could afford them. RNID estimates that approximately 1.8 million people use hearing aids, 600,000 of whom have already been equipped. We are consulting on rolling out the 18-week target to consultant referrals for audiology departments and we shall publish the results shortly.

Julie Kirkbride: Given the Government's willingness to embrace the private sector for the provision of NHS services, has the Under-Secretary considered improving the supply and speed of audiology services by offering those who need a hearing aid a voucher to have it provided wherever they see fit?

Liam Byrne: The Government, together with RNID, has spent £125 million on ensuring that audiology departments in every part of the country can fit digital hearing aids as a matter of routine. We have brought down the cost of digital hearing aids from £2,500 to only £67 through a unique partnership with RNID and the private sector. We have put a new generation of audiologists into training, and the first of those graduates come out of college this year. It is down to PCTs to use the record investment that is available to them to ensure that services are delivered. Where there are shortages of capacity, we have ensured that public-private partnerships are available to shore up supply. If that sounds like a comprehensive programme, it is because it is one.

Mental Health

James Brokenshire: Whether she has made an assessment of the impact of financial deficits on the provision of mental health services; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: A recent assessment undertaken by the Department shows that, in 2005–06, 11 out of 84 mental health provider trusts made reductions to planned expenditure. The reduction of £16.5 million amounted to less than 0.3 per cent. of the total investment of more than £6 billion. In 2005–06, investment in mental health increased by £368 million.

James Brokenshire: There are still considerable concerns about funding mental health services. A day hospital that offered psychological services in my area closed in the past year. The re-provision of that service will take another three years. I am told that that is due to financial constraints in the health economy. Given that mental health is not listed as one of the national NHS priorities for the coming year, is there not a risk that funding to mental health services will be cut so that trusts can balance their books? At the start of national depression week, what assurances can the Under-Secretary give that funding for mental health facilities will not continue to be overlooked?

Rosie Winterton: Since 1999, funding for mental health services has increased by about £1.5 billion. Mental health services have been made one of the Department of Health's top three priorities, and they have been transformed from a Cinderella service into a modernised and reformed service with a lot of new investment going into it. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the day centre in his constituency, but the decision was made locally to put the money that was going into the day centre into new psychological therapies.
	We have recently issued guidance on the use of day centres, and many local trusts are now considering providing more services on a social basis, for example, rather than always providing them in a centre. There was quite a lot of consultation with service users about the day centre in his constituency, and about the different types of service that they would prefer to be offered. Overall, expenditure on mental health services has increased, and we should all be very proud of the real changes that have taken place in the provision of those services.

John Hemming: Given the £64 billion that is going into the primary care trusts, does the Minister accept that the difficulty in the health economy is that the inflexibility of the tariff is having a knock-on effect not only on children's hospitals, but on mental health services? Does she agree that, to avoid meltdown, we need some flexibility in the system so that the funding can be made available for mental health services as well?

Rosie Winterton: The tariff does not apply to mental health services. The evidence is that there has been increased investment in those services, and we are now also providing many of those services within the community, outside the traditional hospital setting. The crisis resolution teams and early intervention teams have been very successful in removing the necessity for expensive in-patient treatment. Treating more people in the community—alongside the extra investment and the new ways of working involving new roles for mental health staff—has really turned the service round. I urge the hon. Gentleman to go and look at some of the new services that are being provided in his constituency. He will find that they are being warmly welcomed by service users and carers.

Tim Loughton: Why did the Minister claim in a written answer to me just three weeks ago that only three mental health trusts were forecasting a deficit when her own survey, published two months earlier, revealed that at least 25 per cent. of the trusts that responded were forecasting deficits? The Health Service Journal reports that 58 per cent. of mental health trusts' chief executives have had to close wards, and that four out of five have implemented recruitment freezes. Pulse magazine reveals that the average wait for an appointment with a child psychiatrist has gone up to 188 days, and that three of the country's specialist child psychiatric in-patient units have closed, with more closures threatened. Is it fair that the Cinderella service of the NHS now has to bear the brunt of the cuts resulting from the financial shambles brought about by the Minister's own Department?

Rosie Winterton: It is quite astonishing that the hon. Gentleman can talk about mental health services as a Cinderella service under this Government, when he knows very well that they were in a shocking state under the previous Conservative Government. Under this Government, about £1.5 billion of extra investment has gone into mental health services, and about 25 per cent. extra for psychiatrists. That is not to say that we cannot go further, but we should all be proud of the massive changes that have been made to the way in which those services are delivered. The 11 trusts that are reported to be making planned reductions in expenditure were going to spend about £893 million. They have spent £16.5 million less than that. Overall, however, the increase in expenditure last year was £368 million. We have put in extra investment, changed the ways of working and made mental health services one of the top three priorities of the Department of Health. That has completely turned the service round since we inherited it from the Conservative Government.

NHS Funding

Meg Hillier: If she will ensure that health trusts which balance their budgets are not disadvantaged under NHS funding criteria.

Patricia Hewitt: We use a fair funding formula to direct funding for the NHS towards areas of greatest need. Over the next two years, in line with that formula, we will ensure that no area is more than 3.5 per cent. below its fair funding target—most will be far closer than that. We will not change that funding formula.

Meg Hillier: It is good to see you back, Mr. Speaker. Both the Homerton hospital trust and the primary care trust in Hackney have had balanced books since their inception, except for a small deficit for the Homerton hospital for the first time this year. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and Hackney residents that money loaned to other areas of the NHS will be paid back on the date agreed and with the interest agreed, so that continuing services develop? Will she also consider how the good management in Hackney can be extended to other parts of the NHS? If the books can be balanced in Hackney, which has severe health needs, they can be balanced elsewhere.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. It is wrong that, in the old monolithic NHS, underspending areas such as Hackney, and the east end of London more broadly, were compensating for overspending in, for instance, the west end of London, which generally has a much better-off population and less pressing health needs. I guarantee that money lent from the Hackney health community and other parts of London to manage the financial problems of the current year will be returned to them, that they will be able to satisfy themselves that recovery plans are not only in place in the overspending areas but implemented and that the NHS in London will be restored to financial balance.

Alistair Burt: Will the Secretary of State also ensure fair treatment for hospitals such as Bedford hospital, which worked hard to obey the Government's instructions before the last election to clear their waiting lists regardless of costs and which now face financial disadvantage because the goalposts have been moved? Why should my local hospital not be in a position to afford to replace consultants because the tactics have suddenly changed post the election?

Patricia Hewitt: The majority of hospitals across the NHS are not only meeting their waiting time targets, treating the vast majority of patients in accident and emergency within four hours and improving patient care in many other ways, but are doing so within their substantially increased budgets. We expect Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire to do exactly the same. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will support decisions being made by the NHS in Bedfordshire, some of which are difficult, to ensure that it delivers the best possible patient care, and does so within its budget instead of expecting to be bailed out by other poorer parts of the country.

Jim Dobbin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those hospital trusts that repeatedly balance their books should not make staff redundant?

Patricia Hewitt: The important test is whether a hospital, even one that is in financial balance, is delivering the best possible patient care with the best possible value for money. Some hospitals that are in financial balance can none the less do more to improve services, whether through day case surgery, reducing the average length of stay or ensuring that more patients are treated in the community rather than having to be admitted to hospital in the first place. The guiding light for all these changes is to provide the best possible care for patients within the enormously increased budgets that we are giving the NHS.

Steve Webb: One important group of trusts that will struggle to balance budgets this year is specialist children's trusts, which, under the new tariff system, will not get the cost of their specialist work refunded to them. Will the Secretary of State investigate the concerns of those trusts? Surely people who want to send their children to Great Ormond Street, Alder Hey and other excellent trusts should not face front-line cuts because of an over-hasty implementation of reform simply to give the Prime Minister a legacy before he goes.

Patricia Hewitt: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has just said and has been saying to the media, we are taking four years to introduce payment by results, which I think he and, indeed, most people in the NHS strongly support. Not only does it underpin patient choice, it gives every hospital proper transparency in relation to costs and a proper reward for its activity.
	In the case of specialist trusts, it is true that the tariff needs further work and development to reflect the costs properly. We are discussing those issues with children's specialist hospitals in particular. They are part of the pride and joy of the NHS, and we will ensure in our discussions with them that they can continue their excellent work for some of the sickest children in our country.

Complaints

Si�n Simon: What steps she is taking to improve the NHS complaints procedure.

Jane Kennedy: I compliment my hon. Friend on the interest that he takes in this subject. I refer him to the written answer that I gave to his question dated 20 December last year. Since that answer was given, however, we have published the White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say, which made a commitment to
	develop by 2009 a comprehensive single complaints system across health and social care.

Si�n Simon: My constituent Jenny O'Connor, who was misdiagnosed last year in this country, went abroad for an operation that she did not need and was given another operation that she did need, along with an explanation of what should have happened in the first place. She came back and asked for her records. Finally, after three months, she obtained the records. When she complained, she was told that she could not do so because time had run out. The trust involved is now under different management, and making great strides. Could the Minister have a word with it about the need to take complaints a little more seriously, not just in this case but across the board?

Jane Kennedy: I am aware of the case that my hon. Friend has raised. In general, it is important for all complaints to be thoroughly and properly investigated, and for the complainant subsequently to be given an explanation and, when appropriate, an apology. I undertake to look into the details of the case, and will be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Northern Ireland

Peter Hain: First, let me warmly welcome you back to the joys of Northern Ireland business, Mr. Speaker. I know that there will be cross-party unity on that in Northern Ireland.
	With permission, I wish to make a statement about the future of Northern Ireland. The last 10 years have seen many crucial decision points in the peace process. One was eight years ago, when the people chose peace over conflict, consent over coercion and a positive future over a poisonous past. Now there is another choice. Before the end of this year, Northern Ireland's political leaders and elected Assembly members must decide whether to take responsibility for their people's future, as they have been mandated to do, or to opt for political cryonics. They must decide whether to bring an end to Northern Ireland's democratic deficit, or to see locally unaccountable direct rule stretch into the foreseeable future.
	I firmly believe that Northern Ireland is governed best when governed locally, and I firmly believe that that view is shared by the people of Northern Ireland. Now is the time to prove them right. Direct rule was a 1970s solution to a 1970s problem. Since then, Northern Ireland has moved on and changed beyond all recognition. It is light years away from the troubles. Where once there was economic stagnation, there is now vibrancy. Where once there was the futility of cyclical violence, there is now the stability and prosperity of peace. And where once the political landscape was riven by sectarianism, there is now a shared desire among all the parties to move forward and take their proper places in the devolved institutions to which they were elected. The only real argument is when and how.
	The experiences of devolution in Scotland and in Wales have demonstrated the huge benefits that local politicians exercising locally accountable power can reap. Both nations have seen increased self-confidence, increased economic growth, increased social cohesion and an increased international profile. Northern Ireland has also undergone a positive transitional experience, but the potential of full devolution remains tantalisingly out of reach.
	The blunt truth is that Northern Ireland is in great danger of being left behind as not only the rest of the United Kingdom strides on successfully, but the Republic of Ireland continues to be one of the biggest global success stories of our generation. It is now for Northern Ireland's politicians to catch upand catch up fast. Northern Ireland's people demand nothing less. From sport to science and from culture to business, Northern Ireland has some of the brightest talent anywhere in the world. It is time that its politicians lived up to that promise and showed vision and courage.
	The arrangements that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach outlined on 6 April give Northern Ireland's politicians the chance to close the chapter on the mistrust that has blighted the process since the suspension of the institutions in October 2002. However, if the parties do not choose to close that chapter of mistrust soon, the Government will be forced to close the book on devolution for the foreseeable future.
	The Independent Monitoring Commission has stated unequivocally that the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat. That is momentous and should be acknowledged as such. Where there are issues around criminality, they must beand indeed are beingaddressed by the police, with the support of the whole community. Where there are issues of trust, they can be resolved only by political dialogue.
	Over the past few months, we have held discussions with all political parties in Northern Ireland with a view to restoring the political institutions. However, as the Prime Minister and Taoiseach made clear in their joint statement on 6 April, we cannot, and will not, try to force Northern Ireland's politicians to take that final step forward. We can only point them towards what we believe to be the best road ahead. We have come to the point at which those outside the Northern Ireland political parties themselves can do little more to facilitate the process. I know that the decisions that will have to be taken are not easy, but honestly believe that history will not look kindly on those who miss the opportunity that stands before us.
	Copies of the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and Taoiseach on 6 April have been placed in the Library of the House, as have the speeches that they delivered. I will further place the Prime Minister's speech on record in a written ministerial statement tomorrow.
	The joint statement indicated that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be recalled on 15 May, with a view to reaching agreement to restore the institutions by 24 November. Last week, I nominated a new Presiding Officer, Eileen Bell. I have every hope that she will soon be overseeing the transition of the Assembly to full devolution. A woman of real courage, strength and ability, she is highly regarded by all, and could be the symbol of a new political era of co-operation and progress, leaving behind sectarianism and division.
	We will aim to discuss with the parties next week how the Assembly will function after 15 May, including its standing orders. I will also be introducing an emergency Bill on 20 April, for taking through the House next week. I know that this is an extremely tight timetable, but the Bill will have only about half a dozen clauses in total and hon. Members will appreciate the urgency. We need to get the parties back in the Assembly and talking now to provide them with the maximum opportunity for securing agreement by 24 November at the very latest.
	The Bill will arrange for the Assembly to be recalled with the express purpose that it sets about electing a First and Deputy First Minister on a cross-community basis, and then forms an Executive, under the d'Hondt formula. As soon as that is done, power will automatically be devolved, as happened in December 1999, and all the Assembly's other functions will be resumed.
	Our hope and intention is that the Assembly will elect an Executive within six weeks, as envisaged by paragraph 35 of strand 1of the Good Friday agreement. However, if that time frame proves to be too short, the Assembly will have a further 12-week period after the summer in which to complete the task. During that period, it will be open to the parties to engage in further discussion, both among themselves and with the Government, on improving the running of the institutions. The Assembly will also have opportunities to prepare for government by considering issues that are crucial to the future of Northern Ireland, such as the economy and reforms to education, water charges and public administration.
	The Bill will have obvious implications for Orders in Council. Some of the forthcoming Northern Ireland legislation on transferred matters will obviously be appropriate for consideration by the restored Assembly, and Ministers will naturally be willing to take account of views on such matters, if they are provided on a cross-community basis.
	It would be preferable to all democrats if the parties were quickly able to take up the mantle of government so that the decisions that affect the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland were taken by locally accountable politicians. However, in the meantime, I will not delay implementing vital reforms that this Government consider essential to the better running of Northern Ireland. While those decisions may not always be popular, they are necessary in the public interest, to put Northern Ireland on the road to becoming world class.
	If, however, the Assembly has been unable to achieve a power-sharing Executive by 24 November, there will be no choice but to cancel Assembly Members' salaries and allowances forthwith, and to cancel the election due in May 2007. It would be absurd to elect Members unwilling to discharge their duties to an Assembly that would not have sat for more than four and a half years.
	Restoration of the Assembly and Executive would then be deferred until there was a renewed political willingness to exercise devolved power. The two Governments would then continue their commitment to developing north-south co-operation and structures as set out in the Good Friday agreement. In this scenario, the agreement would remain very much alive.
	It is crucial that the parties keep talkingnot just to the two Governments, but to each other. We are committed to facilitating dialogue to achieve this over the months ahead in whatever forum is requiredfull plenary sessions of the Assembly, smaller forums of designated members, or all-party discussions, including with the Prime Ministers.
	I want to re-emphasise that the strategy that the two Governments have agreed is designed for success, not failure. Our overwhelming desire is that local politicians take power back into their own hands, just as Scotland and Wales have done to great effect. It is time for Northern Ireland's politicians to show leadership and good faithin themselves, in each other and in the people who elected them.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making this statement at the earliest opportunity after Parliament's return and also for his courtesy in letting me have early sight of its contents. I say at the start that I hope that this initiative by the Government succeeds. My party will support the Secretary of State in this initiative. However, I have several concerns and questions.No one in this House does anyone in Northern Ireland any favours by trying to wish away the serious difficulties that still exist. Like the Secretary of State, I want to see devolution working in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland should have the right to elect representatives to take decisions on their behalf and to hold those representatives to account for their stewardship. But the truth is that we will not get agreement on an Executive, and certainly not by 24 November, unless we are able to overcome the deep mistrust that exists between the different communities and political parties.
	My party accepts that the republican movement has come a long way in the past yearwould that it had done so much earlierand the IRA's statement of 28 July 2005 and the act of decommissioning in September were highly significant developments. But does the Secretary of State agree with me that the responsibility now rests primarily with republicans to persuade democrats from both the Unionist and nationalist traditions that their renunciation of violence and their declared commitment as republicans to democratic politics are both permanent and irreversible? Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be wrong to have Sinn Fein Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland while the IRA continues to be involved in criminal activity, or before Sinn Fein is prepared to give its unequivocal backing to the police and the courts in Northern Ireland? Does he further accept that those moves need to come before an Executive are formed, and not at some unspecified point in the future when powers over policing and justice can be devolved?
	In that context, I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to comment briefly on the fact that two very serious crimes have taken place in the last fortnight. In both cases, there has been much speculation about the involvement of members of the provisional republican movement. Clearly, if such involvement were to be proven, the task of building confidence and restoring devolution would be a hard oneI suspect that it would be impossiblein the time frame that the Government now envisage. Will the Secretary of State tell the House, so far as he is able to without compromising ongoing police investigations, what information he has received?
	First, does he believe allegations that the murder of Denis Donaldson was carried out by the provisional IRA? The Prime Minister has declared very confidently that people who wanted to wreck the peace process carried out that crime. That confidence suggests that Ministers possess reliable information about the matter. At the time of the Northern bank robbery, both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda swiftly concluded that the IRA was to blame, and said so publicly. Have the two police forces yet come to any similarly firm conclusion about who was responsible for the murder?
	Secondly, the Secretary of State will know that on 10 April the Garda arrested three men in Westmeath, after a lorry carrying vodka worth 300,000 was hijacked. Have the Irish authorities told him whether Dublin press reports are true and that the alleged criminals were known provisional activists? It has been claimed that one of them was released under the early-release provisions of the Belfast agreement.
	In the wake of that incident, the Irish Justice Minister commented:
	As long as the IRA continues to exist and the IRA constitution continues to be treasonable and subversive then problems will continue to remain.
	Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr. McDowell's assessment?
	The joint statement of 6 April listed education among the issues that the new Assembly should discuss as part of its preparation for government. Will the Secretary of State therefore agree to put off his proposed education reforms, at least until the Assembly has considered them and its views are known?
	Regarding the internal governance of Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm that it remains entirely a matter for the UK Government accountable to this Parliament? We on the Conservative Benches appreciate the efforts and commitment of successive Irish Governments, and of the Taoiseach personally, to a lasting settlement. I believe that political, economic and cultural relationships between the UK and the Republic of Ireland should be at least as close as those between any two modern European democracies that share a common land border. However, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is a fundamental principle of the Belfast agreement and the entire political process that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the UK is accepted by all sidesalbeit unwillingly in some casesunless and until the people of Northern Ireland freely consent to change? Does he therefore agree that any form of joint authority would be in breach of that principle of consent?
	On the emergency legislation that the right hon. Gentleman has announced, my colleagues and I will want to look at the detail as soon as it is available. However, once we have done so, we hope to be able to support the Government and to help to bring the Bill into law as quickly as possible.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give me some reassurance about a particular anxiety of minethat the Bill might include powers for Ministers to amend Acts of Parliament by order. Will the Bill contain such powers? If the answer is yes, will he promise that it will impose very strict limits on both the extent and duration of those powers?

Peter Hain: First, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, and for putting it on the record that, in general terms, the Opposition will support the initiative. I agree that it is in no one's interest to attempt to wish away what he described as the serious difficulties afflicting this process.
	There is deep mistrust, and I agree that responsibility does indeed lie with republicans to ensure that everyonenot just their supporters, but their opponentsis persuaded that they are genuinely committed to peaceful and democratic means; that they have, as the Independent Monitoring Commission has reported, rejected their past commitment to terrorism; and that they are committed to rejecting criminality, about which I will say more in answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for further information on the murder of Denis Donaldson and on the vodka heist. He asked for further information on whether they were carried out by the IRA. I accept that he himself made a distinction between those events and the Northern Bank robbery, which the Chief Constable was quick to say was the responsibility of the IRA. No firm conclusions have been yet drawn by the police on either matter, and there is certainly no evidence that I have seen, or that the police have provided to me, or any intelligence, that either very serious incident, not least the barbaric murder of Denis Donaldson, was sanctioned, approved or in any way organised with, as it were, prior thought by the leadership of the provisional IRA.
	Let me quote for the House's benefit a statement issued by the IRA on 13 April[Interruption.] I think it important to put this on the record.
	The IRA has no responsibility for the tiny number of former republicans who have embraced criminal activity. They do so for self-gain. We repudiate this activity and denounce those involved. The IRA remains committed to the peace process . . . The leadership . . . believes that it is possible to achieve the republican goal of a united Ireland through the alternative route of purely peaceful and democratic means.
	I may add that the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, has made clear his total condemnation of the murder and of criminality that may be carried out in the name of republicans.
	On education reform, I am happy to provide assurances that I believe it would be a suitable matter for discussion in the Assembly if the Assembly chose to discuss it and if there were all-party agreement to do so. Undoubtedly, if all-party policy positions were agreed by the Assembly, the Education Ministerthe Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith)and I would want to take careful note of them. We intend to bring forward an order next month to set the overall architecture, but there will be considerable scope once the Assembly has got going to determine the exact new admission arrangements, the nature of the pupil profile, curriculum detail and so forth. Those would be appropriate issues for the Assembly to discuss, but no one, I think, is in any doubt aboutI have heard no one defend it to methe continued existence of a method of deciding a child's future on the basis of two one-hour tests, after which their future opportunities are either closed or opened up. There is agreement, however, that there is genuine debate on the issue and there will be an opportunity to influence the future over exactly how the new regime will operate.
	On the supremacy, as it were, of the United Kingdom Government in the governance of Northern Ireland, I am happy to agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely no question of joint authority or joint governance. There is plenty of scope, however, and the hon. Gentleman implied that he agreed with this, for practical co-operation, as provided for through the architecture of the Good Friday agreement, which was endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland, for cross-border co-operation in a number of areasfor example, on energy, the economy, child offending, and getting rid of unfair mobile phone roaming charges so that there is a single, all-Ireland rate. On those sorts of issues, and on many more, there is tremendous scope for future co-operation, much of which, indeed, is already taking place. But there is no question of joint authority. There is no question of that at all.
	I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general support on the emergency legislation and will be happy to take him through the detail when we have an opportunity to do so. I am being very cautious about Orders in Council; I know there is sensitivity to them in Parliament, both in this place and the House of Lords. However, I want some flexibility to make progress. I had hoped to include in the Bill provision by Order in Council, should we be in a position to reach a final agreement, and also to amend the strands 1 to 3 arrangements, which everybody understands will be necessary in terms of the original architecture; for example, the Democratic Unionist party has made its position clear.
	I had hoped to include an Order-in-Council provision in the Bill, but it seems that there is opposition to that, so we shall have to look at emergency legislation later in the year, should there be the conditions for the necessary all-party agreement and the restoration of the institutions that we desire. I shall obviously consult the hon. Gentleman on all the detail as we go through the process.

Mark Durkan: I welcome your return to health and work, Mr. Speaker, although I am not sure that we are the most therapeutic company this afternoon.
	I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his advance courtesies in connection with it. I welcome his indication that he has decided not to seek Order-in-Council powers in the Bill to adjust the working of the institutions. He will understand that it is not just because some of us were celebrating the 1916 rising this weekend that we would not be happy to see the Secretary of State take such powers in relation to institutions that were mandated uniquely by all the people of Ireland in our generation.
	In relation to other aspects of the statement, the Secretary of State indicated that there would be discussions with the parties next week about how the Assembly might function, including standing orders. The key question in those discussions will be who is to decide and when. We are told that the measure will give the Assembly a new working status and that it will not be just a shadow Assembly, so will there be a similar new working status for the north-south arrangements in that period, beyond care and maintenance?
	In relation to a number of decisions, including water charges and the review of public administration, the Secretary of State indicated that Ministers would take account of views provided on a cross-community basis. Will he colour in the difference between taking account of views and abiding by them?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening points.
	On the hon. Gentleman's question about changes to strands 1 to 3 of the Good Friday agreement, despite his opposition to my taking powers through Order in Council, the reason I was planning to do so is that I am concerned about running up against the deadline and making the changes in time. There will be a brief spill-over period after we come back in October before Parliament prorogues and then an equally brief time after Queen's SpeechI do not yet know the date, but Members can imagine the timetablebefore we reach 24 November. I was concerned about having enough scope to take through emergency legislation, but if that is what we have to do, we shall have to try.
	However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we shall have to make changes in the strands to get all the parties together. There is no point in keeping our heads in the sand. The DUP has a mandate and has made it absolutely clear that it requires changes, and I acknowledge that. The Government stand ready to make those changes once we can achieve agreement on them, and that will require legislation. As I said, I would have preferred to have done that a little more easily through an Order in Council, on which I would have consulted widely and sought agreement, but obviously separate primary legislation will be necessary. Let us hope that, given the timetable, we can make things dovetail.
	On standing orders, the Secretary of Statein other words myselfwill have responsibility for drawing them up, as happened last time. We want to consult all the parties about them in detail, especially the Northern Ireland parties that will be in pole position, to try to reach agreement. The Assembly can of course amend the standing orders, as it can confirm or reject my nomination of Eileen Bell as the Speaker; the question of any deputies to be appointed will also be provided for in the Bill.
	I do not envisage any new status for north-south co-operation during this period, but we will, of course, continue to do what we have been doing energetically for the past year and indeed before to gain everyone's support for co-operation on the economy and a range of other matters. We will discuss the possible shape of additional north-south co-operation, but we do not want to get into the business of pre-empting that. We want the Assembly and the institutions restored, and we want north-south co-operation to proceed on basis that it has successfully done so recently.
	Obviously, an order will be introduced fairly soon on water charges, and I will want to take into account everything that the Assembly might want to say about that, particularly views that command cross-community support in the Assembly and that address the public expenditure consequences of adopting a different approach. Of course, if the Assembly voted unanimously to reject water charges, I would have to take account of that, but I would want to know where we would find the 200 million or so of extra public expenditure generated by those water charges and where we would get the finance to invest in Northern Ireland's decaying sewerage and water system. Finding those answers would be the responsibility of anyone who addresses the issue in the Assembly.

Lembit �pik: I also thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement.
	The Liberal Democrats welcome the IMC's statement that the IRA no longer presents a terrorist threat, but we share the Secretary of State's concern and, indeed, that of the Conservative spokesperson regarding the ongoing involvement of paramilitaries in criminal activity. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the Government still regard organised paramilitary crime as a breach of ceasefire?
	On the Government's clear targets for the Assembly's reconstitution, we also agree that decisions on matters such as health, transport and education are best taken locally, by locally elected politicians. I must press the Secretary of State to answer the questions that he has already been asked. Rather than saying that he would take account of a unanimous view of a reconstituted and properly functioning Assembly, why does he not give us an assurance that the Government will respond literally to cross-party opposition to, for example, the introduction of tuition fees in Northern Ireland, which he knows commanded the unanimous opposition of parties in Northern Ireland?
	Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that, if a reconstituted Assembly were to vote unanimously inopposition to, for example, tuition fees, the Government would repeal those fees? Similarly, can he be a bit more specific about what he means by taking account of the views of Northern Ireland politicians in a reconstituted Assembly on the profound changes proposed to the secondary system of selection? Can he assure us that, rather than simply taking account of and then ignoring the Assembly's views, the Government will act on them, even if the Government are forced to act differently in Northern Ireland from the way in which they have acted in England and Wales?
	Finally, if this latest effort is to restore the Assembly properly, the Government must establish round-table and inclusive negotiations that genuinely involve all political parties. There must be no question of secret side deals, with one or two parties. Does the Secretary of State recognise therefore that, to achieve a permanent solution, all parties must be involved. Indeed, different deals with different parties undermine the talks process. If the Government want to achieve a lasting settlement, they must ensure that everyone works together, even if that is more time consuming than the quick-fix solutions that we have seen in the past. Although I have always been an optimist about the peace process, I have sometimes been a cynic about the Government's plans, because of the temptation to seek tactical answers in a strategic debate. If the Secretary of State can confirm that inclusive talks really are all-party talks and that they will be truly transparent and not involve secret, unwritten or written unilateral deals with individual parties, he can be most certainly assured of Liberal Democrat support.

Peter Hain: I am grateful for that. I can confirm immediately that the talks will be genuinely all-party. Whatever happened in the past and whatever the arguments about that are, given the distrust that has set in over the past couple of years, we cannot proceed without all-party, inclusive negotiations. That would include the Alliance party, as well as all the other major parties in Northern Ireland.
	I agree that there is still too much criminalityby loyalist paramilitaries and republican paramilitaries. That must be stopped. I find it encouraging that the leadership of both Sinn Fein and the IRA have said that they condemn it as wellthe hon. Gentleman can make of that what he wishes. At least it is a positive agreement with the point of view that he was putting forward.
	On education reforms, I was slightly surprised to hear an avowedly progressive party such as the Liberal Democrats standing absolutely solid by the 11-plus, as though it were the fount of all educational opportunity. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are talking about a decision on a child's future at age 10 or 11, which is taken as a result of a short test on one day, when that child's parents might have had an argument over breakfast or there might have been a riot overnight. That test can open the gate to a child's future, if they pass it, or close it shutin some cases for good. That is not a defensible position for any progressive politician.
	There has been a long period of consultation and the matter has been given much consideration. It is in the interest of parents, pupils and schools that we settle the issue to provide long-term clarity. Howeverthis addresses the points that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) madethere are a wide range of other issues that will need to be addressed: the pupil profile, the curriculum content, the entitlement framework and so on. Those issues will all have to be the subject of subsequent orders. I hope that those decisions will be taken by the Assembly itself.
	As for tuition fees, I find it surprising that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) did not say where he will find the money from.

Lembit �pik: We have already told you.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman may think that that is my responsibility, but he represents a party that has pretensions to government and yet he is not prepared to discuss the funding implications for higher education and student finance, as well as the policies themselves.
	To conclude, I emphasise that the commitment to all-party inclusive talks is genuine and without reservation.

Tom Harris: I add my voice to those who have already welcomed you back to the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The whole House will appreciate and understand why the democratic parties in Northern Ireland do not want to trust Sinn Fein, but, in forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament, the Labour party has shown that it is possible to form a working relationship with those who neither deserve nor receive our trust. Is it not about time that the Democratic Unionist party did the same?

Peter Hain: I think that it is best if I just say to my hon. Friend, who makes his point with great eloquence and force, that Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland and Scotland is Scotland.

Peter Robinson: May I join others in saying that my colleagues and I are delighted to see you back in your place, Mr. Speaker? We are particularly pleased that you look so well.
	I echo the shadow Secretary of State's comments about paragraph 10 of the Prime Minister's statementthe threat applied to Unionists should the date of 24 November not be met. That threat was crass and foolish, and is contrary to any concept of the principle of consent. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it very clear that there will be no constitutional change as a result of the Provisional IRA not meeting the deadline that is set for 24 November.
	Will the Secretary of State also find some time to take his hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to one side and explain to him the principle of the mandate? We are living in a parliamentary democracy and, in a parliamentary democracy, the electorate can change the mandate from one election to the next. The electorate have freely, at the ballot box, made it very clear in the Unionist community that they oppose the Belfast agreement. My colleagues and I have suggested the changes required to achieve a satisfactory agreement that can win the support of the Unionist community. There is a deficiency in the Prime Minister's statement, as it does not provide a road map to show how that can come about, and the timetable does not take account of the necessary steps to bring it about.
	There is another deficiency in the timetable. The Prime Minister seems to have opted for the notion that the Unionist community can be timetabled into an Executive. The issue will be determined not by the clock but according to whether various conditions have been met and whether paramilitary and criminal activity has ended. That is the critical factor for my party. We want to move into devolution, and we want an Executive in Northern Ireland, but the principle of our mandate indicates that we can only share power with those who are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
	Will the Secretary of State say very clearly at the Dispatch Box that he does not expect anybody to share power in government with those who continue paramilitary and criminal activity? I remind him that the Prime Minister's statement was sandwiched between two eventsthe killing of Denis Donaldson, in which members of the Provisional IRA were involved, and the vodka heist in the Republic, in which members of the Provisional IRA were involved. The Unionist community wants to be certain that the provisional IRA did not organise and sanction those events.

Peter Hain: First, I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) a happy 80th birthday, which fell on the day of the joint statement by the Taoiseach and the Prime MinisterI do not know whether that was pre-planned by divine intervention.
	May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are absolutely no threats to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland in the statement by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister or in anything that I say at the Dispatch Box today? That constitutional status was decided by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, and it can only be changed by them in a referendum. I reiterate that that is our policy, and the policy of every good democrat in the House and outside. Nothing in that statement, and nothing that I have said today about north-south co-operation and practical matters, alters that at all, nor could it do so.
	I agree that the principle of the mandate must be respected. The hon. Gentleman's party won a clear majority of the votes, and it is the largest party from Northern Ireland in this Parliament and, indeed, in the Assembly. It was elected on a platform that requires changes to the detail of the Good Friday agreement, and that is precisely what we will address when it comes to negotiating a final solution. There is no point other parties seeking to deny that, which is why I sought to address the matter in my early thoughts about the Bill. We will have to take it forward in another way if we reach the point where there is, as I hope that there will be, all-party agreement to restore the institutions, as I accept that that cannot be done without changes of the kind that we have discussed before, particularly in 2004, and that require further legislation.
	On the question of paramilitary and criminal activity, the hon. Gentleman has seen the last few IMC reports, particularly the last one, which made it clear, as I said, that the IRA no longer poses a terrorist threat. The report made it clear, too, that although there are instances of localised criminality, there is no evidence that that is organised from the top. Indeed, it made it clear that criminal operations have been closed down by the organisation, which puts us on the right road. I accept that the hon. Gentleman's party is concerned about the matter. I am concerned about it too, which is why the police and the Assets Recovery Agencythis applies across the borderare pursuing those responsible for such criminality energetically. All the recent reports confirm that, whether the criminals are claimed to be republican or loyalist.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Before I call a Back Bencher, may I ask hon. Members to co-operate by asking the Minister only one supplementary question?

Alasdair McDonnell: May I add my good wishes to you, Mr. Speaker, on your recovery and return? The Chair seemed a little empty in your absence, and we are very glad to have you back.
	I am deeply concerned about the singular attention given by Secretary of State to the mandate of the Democratic Unionist party. The DUP has a mandateit has about a third of the votes in Northern Irelandand I respect it. However, my party has a mandate, too, and I would like the Secretary of State and the DUP occasionally to respect it. Other parties have a mandate. Most of all, however, the Good Friday agreement has a mandatea bigger mandate and a more significant one than any individual political party's. It involves not just many of the political parties, but two Governments at national level and was endorsed by public referendum.
	My concern also extends to the Secretary of State's reference to changing institutions. Does he believe that any of the proposed changes will make any difference? It was not issues surrounding the change of institutions that brought the agreement down, so will the changes that he proposes help us in any way to restore it?

Peter Hain: I agree that it is not only the DUP that has a mandate; of course the SDLP has an important mandate and I listen to what that party says, too. I also agree that the Good Friday agreement has an even bigger mandate because it was endorsed by all the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, by the people of the whole island of Ireland. The fact remains that, if a party makes it clear that it requires certain changes that are important to it, and has stood on such a platformnot changes to the fundamental architecture of the Good Friday agreement, because that remains in place; all the fundamental principles remain in placethere is no point in denying that that has occurred. There is every reason to expect, plan and provide foras I intend to dothe opportunity to make those changes, if there is a commitment by all the parties to form the necessary agreement to restore the institutions. We would have to make those changes as part of that agreement and I do not see how the hon. Gentleman could, publicly or otherwise, really disagree with that.

Patrick Cormack: I wish the Secretary of State success, but does he accept that there cannot be different standards of democratic integrity in different parts of the United Kingdom? Therefore, an absolute, complete and credible repudiation of criminality on the part of Sinn Fein-IRA is fundamental to the success of what he seeks to achieve.

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. I pay particular attention to what he says as he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I am not an historian and I have been less close than other hon. Members to what has been said in Northern Ireland in the past, but I do not remember the IRA ever talking about republicans who have embraced criminal activity. The ethos of the IRA and republicanism was that the British state is an unacceptable intrusion in Northern Ireland, and therefore it is legitimate to do whatever is necessary to get rid of it. What the IRA has said is a significant move forward. I agree with him, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the deputy leader of the DUP and others that we must ensure that criminality is rooted outabsolutely.

Jeremy Corbyn: Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you back and looking so splendid. I hope that you are well.
	I support what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve in restoring a devolved Assembly to Northern Ireland, but is he convinced in his discussions with the DUP that that party actually wants the restoration of a devolved assembly? Is he convinced that it wants to reach an agreement? Is there not a danger of handing the DUP a veto over the whole future of the devolved process in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: I do not think that there is any question of a veto. The DUP is a pro-devolution party: it has consistently said so. The issue is how to create the circumstances in which all the parties can agree. There will be no vetoes for anyone in that process.

Michael Ancram: I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
	I welcome the Secretary of State's undertaking that there is no question of joint authority in the case of failure to meet the November deadline. Welcome, too, is his assurance that any progress will be based on trust, not coercion. In that context, he will have heard the words in the mouths of Irish Ministers last week referring to the November deadline as a last chance saloon, thereby raising suspicion that the Irish Government would retain some sanction over the governance of the Province if the deadline were not met. Will he make it absolutely clear that the governance of Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, will be for this Government and for this Parliament of the United Kingdom alone?

Peter Hain: Of course, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows from his time as a Northern Ireland Minister, it is also important to co-operate as good democrats with an important neighbour across the border, the south of the island of Ireland. That is what the issue is about, and there is no question of sanctions being imposed against anybody. I have not used the phrase last chance saloon, and the Taoiseach certainly did not use it. However, we cannot continue to have an Assembly that costs some 85 million a year and that does not meet or do its job, because that brings democracy into disrepute. That is our point, and we are giving people the opportunity to reach a conclusion, but it is a question not of sanctions, but of moving on if progress is not possible.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State knows that the Taoiseach held a press conference in Armagh, where he urged the Unionist parties to enter government with Sinn Fein-IRA. Will he answer the question that most men and women in the street are asking: if the Taoiseach thinks it so important and so right for the Unionist parties to enter government with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, why has he stated so categorically that he will have nothing to do with Sinn Fein entering government in the Republic?

Peter Hain: The Taoiseach has answered that question himself by stating that his main disagreement with Sinn Fein in the Republic of Ireland concerns its economic policy, which he thinks would undermine all the success in the Republic.

Lady Hermon: I am delighted to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
	I am delighted that the Secretary of State has announced that the Assembly will be restored, but will he clarify this contradiction? He has said that he firmly believes that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally and that the people of Northern Ireland share that view and he pointed out that the Assembly will be recalled on 15 May, in less than a month. With that in mind, will he explain why the Northern Ireland Office is driving through delegated legislation this afternoon to set in stone the seven super-councils?

Peter Hain: That is not a contradiction. The policy was decided after years of consultation and has widespread support across the business community, the voluntary sector and independent opinion, which is the basis for the change. It is important to press ahead with the order to ensure that the new boundaries are in place for the next local elections in May 2009. The order does not address the substantive issue of the functions of the new councilsit would be very good if the Assembly were to address thator detail the checks and balances that will apply. If would be good if the Assembly were to get on with the work on the legislation to implement the architecture of local government reform and reduce the number of councils from 26 to seven.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am surprised that the Secretary of State has decided to name the new Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because surely even the humblest legislative assembly jealously safeguards its interest in choosing its own speaker. His statement was ambiguous, because he did not make it clear whether he was making a nomination, an indication of preference or an appointment. The existing standing orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly provide for the retiring Deputy Speaker, who has been re-elected, to preside at the election of the new Speaker, but will that take process place? What are the ground rules for the election of the Speakeris it a nomination or is it an appointment?

Peter Hain: I am doing very little different from what was decided when the Assembly was first convened. There is obviously a responsibility to ensure that somebody presides. I think that Eileen Bell is the right person to do that, and therefore she will be in the Chair on the opening day. It is open to the parties to change that decision, as it is for them to appoint deputies if they choose to do so.

Andrew MacKinlay: What about the existing standing orders?

Peter Hain: The standing orders will need to be changed for a whole number of reasons that will become apparent when we publish the emergency Bill.

Andrew MacKay: While warmly supporting what the Secretary of State is endeavouring to achieve and wishing him well, may I gently put it to him that when he asks the political parties in Northern Ireland to close this chapter of mistrust, he is treating each of those parties equally? That is something of an insult to the democratic parties that are totally non-violent and it does not make his task any easier in achieving a lasting settlement.

Peter Hain: Clearly, those parties that have consorted with or organised criminality in the past must be treated in a different way. I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. However, the principle that I was trying to express was that Unionists need to be sure that republicans have put behind them all commitments to paramilitary activity and criminality, while republicans and nationalistsSinn Fein and the Social and Democratic Labour partyhave to be certain that Unionists will form a power-sharing Executive with them. There is trust to be built from both ends. That is what this initiative is designed to achieve, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support for it in principle.

William McCrea: I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr. Speaker.
	Does not the Secretary of State surprise this House in rewriting the last Independent Monitoring Commission report, which said that the IRA is still heavily engaged in criminal activity? How can he accept, or want us to believe, that the IRA really has turned its back on criminal activity when in fact the Donaldson death and the recent criminal activity in the Irish Republic are clearly attributed to members of the Provisional IRA?

Peter Hain: Let us see what the police say in their investigations about those two matters. As I recall, the last IMC report said that the IRA had turned its back on paramilitary activity and had closed down a series of criminal operations, buton this I agree with the hon. Gentlemanindicated that members were still engaged in criminal activity. There was no evidence that that was organised, planned or in any way led from the centre. We are about to receive another IMC report, so let us see what it says and whether it can help to build the trust that the hon. Gentleman and his party are entitled to have and demand.

Ben Wallace: I noticed that, in answering the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) concerning the murder of Denis Donaldson, the Secretary of State was very particular in talking about the leadership of the Provisional IRA. Does he have any information or intelligence from the police or the security services that members of the IRA were involved in that murder? If that information comes to light in the next few days or months, what will he do about it?

Peter Hain: As I say, we will have to see what the police say when they have completed their investigations. We are fully and actively supporting the police in the Republic and our own policewho are co-operating on this matterand our security services in trying to track down those who are responsible. When we find that out, we will obviously be prepared to acknowledge it, whoever they are.

Sammy Wilson: I, too, welcome you back, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are very happy to be released from what I think that you described as your medical house arrest.
	May I ask the Secretary of State about the contradictory message that comes from this statement? He says that the Assembly will have opportunities to prepare for government and discuss crucial issues such as education. A couple of paragraphs later, he says that he will not delay in implementing vital reforms. Indeed, we have heard today that some of those are being pushed through later this afternoon. Will he make it clear what it is to be? Is he going to put on hold those parts of Government policy, such as the education reforms, which are opposed by 62 per cent. of people inNorthern Ireland, and the changes in public administration, or are we going to see a disgraceful flurry of activity as he pushes through legislation that he knows does not command widespread cross-community support and would never be accepted by a devolved Administration were one up and running in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: On education, if the Assembly can reach a cross-party consensus that seeks to change in some fundamental or other way what the Government are doing, I will obviously have to listen to it. I must return a question to the hon. Gentleman: will he get involved in the serious process of beginning to build trust and share government? Without giving offence to anybody, it sometimes seems that the political debate in Northern Ireland is conducted as though the world is standing still. I have just returned from India on a trade mission for Northern Ireland. We see big companies in India, such as the Tata Group, recruiting 6,000 graduates a month in order to drive forward their competitiveness. Northern Ireland cannot stand still. In particular, we cannot stand still with an unreformed education system that palpably fails at least a third of its children. We must have reforms to have high skills for everybody. That is what the debate is about.

Iris Robinson: The Secretary of State said in his statement, Ministers will naturally be willing to take account of views on such matters, if they are provided on a cross-community basis. Can he explain what that means? Would he stake his house on the Government implementing changes recommended by the Assembly?

Peter Hain: The statement, which the hon. Lady has just quoted back at me, made it clear that, if there was a cross-community vote, I and my ministerial team would want to take account of it on a range of issues. I hope we can achieve a situation in which such cross-community votes would be possible on all the concerns that she has, and on other matters.

Housing Act 2004 (Amendment)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Housing Act 2004 so as to repeal provisions relating to Home Information Packs.
	May I say how delighted I am to see you back, Mr. Speaker? The wonders of Irn Bru, perhapsa Glaswegian beverage, I am sure.
	The purpose of the Bill is to remove section 5 of the Act, thus preventing the introduction of home information packs, which are due to come into force next June. In doing so, my Bill matches what the House demands of all ten-minute Billsthat there will be
	no charge upon the people, nor any drain upon the public purse.
	My Bill will do much better. It will save the people and, more importantly, the public purse, tens of millions of wasted pounds every single year.
	Home information packs are not intrinsically bad. It makes sense for anyone who wants to sell a house to have the information that buyers need readily available in advance. There is nothing to stop sellers getting local authority searches done long before anyone makes an offer. There is good reason for making comprehensive lists of fixtures and fittings. That is fairly standard. Searches and lists have to be completed before legal contracts kick in, so why not get on with it?
	The trouble with home information packs, commonly known as HIPs, is that we cannot stick a For Sale board in our front garden unless we have already paid for a glossy information pack before we even start. We need not waste time ringing the man from Snipcock, Sidewinder and Winge. He is not allowed to market our des. res. unless our HIP is in order. The Government claim that HIPs will speed up house sales. Virtually all estate agents disagree and since they make money only when house sales are completed, they probably know what they are talking about.
	A HIP will include local authority searches and land registry checks, which old-fashioned solicitorsthere are one or two in this placeused to do, plus one or two brand-new elements, unfortunately. There is to be an energy rating for every home in the market, demanded by our friends from Europe, and a home condition reporta sort of survey that is not conducted by a surveyor, believe it or not. Needless to say, the home condition report is the most controversial element of the whole process.
	Home condition reports have to be prepared by home inspectorsa new breed of instant professional invented by the Government. People may prefer their houses to be examined by a qualified surveyor with 30 years' experiencewho would not? However, unless he or she chooses to take an expensive and much less rigorous course, he or she will not be permitted to prepare home condition reports.
	There are currently only 30 trained home inspectors in England and Wales. By next June, the Government want to have 7,000a tall order by anybody's standards. The Government claim that there are 4,000 in training but the true figure is much smaller. We cannot blame those who have embarked on that new career paththey have been promised lucrative futures. The price of a home information pack is 1,000 plus VAT and every house on the market will have to have one. So that is the territory of big new money, with big new VAT returns forguess whothe Treasury, and very big bucks for those companies that already undermine high street solicitors and chartered surveyors. Those are the guys who will really clean up, selling the pack programmes to eager new home inspectors.
	Every hopeful home inspector has already parted with 3,000 to learn the basics. I have two packs with methey are large. Every hopeful home inspector will need a good quality laptop, broadband access, annual certification costs and a public liability insurance fee, which remains unknown. Nobody can tell us how much it will be. That is the trouble with the existing legislationtoo many things have yet to be settled.
	Let me give an example. Lawyers pay 5,000 a year each for insurance, and, because there are 55,000 lawyers, they get a discount. It therefore stands to reason that insuring 7,000 brand-new untried home inspectors is likely to cost much more. Maybe that is one reason why there are not enough recruits. In Wales, there are so few that the scheme can hardly start. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) will testify to that absence.
	The training providers are getting twitchy too. Courses are now being offered cut-price for qualified surveyors. How would we feel if we had poured our redundancy money into a costly training course only to discover that surveyors were being fast-tracked? How would we feel if we suddenly learned that there would be five completely different certification schemes instead of one? The introduction of home information packs is being made up as it goes along. There are enough moving goalposts to make Wayne Rooney dizzy.
	The Government promised details of an experimental dry run by now. We assumed that they would organise it. Silly us. The dry run will be undertaken exclusively by the home information pack industry. Estate agents, lawyers and surveyors will not even be involved. As a realistic test bed of how the system might work, it is a guaranteed failure. How can one replicate the stresses and strains of the housing market if one leaves out the people who actually deal with it?
	I said that I was not against home information packsI am not. I am not even against home condition reports if they offer buyers and sellers realistic alternatives, but they do not. Let us suppose that one wants a mortgage. One cannot simply wave the home condition report at the building society. The Council of Mortgage Lenders assures me that formal valuations will still be demanded at extra cost. Let us suppose that someone is worried about the condition of an outside wallare not we all, with Westminster Hall? A home condition report will state that it is made of brick, stone or concrete and give a basic impression of wear and tear. The problem is that it is a matter of ticking boxeshundreds of them. Hon. Members can borrow the reports if they like. However, one is not getting a proper survey from a properly qualified surveyor. Unless the transaction is incredibly simple, one will want to get a lawyer to take a look at the home information pack. The Government are forcing on us a way of selling our houses: this is yet another charge. If this new law was meant to save anyone any money, I cannot see how that is going to happen. Perhaps it was meant to speed up house transactions and stop gazumping, but it simply will not do so. The financial evidence suggests quite the opposite.
	In Denmarkthe only other country to have embraced this systemhome condition reports were introduced in 1996. The Deputy Prime Minister of our country says that any fall in Danish house sales was insignificant, but I asked the House of Commons Library to investigate. It obtained figures from the Danish Parliament showing a 10 per cent. fall in house sales in three years. The chief executive of Denmark's estate agents association puts the cost higher still. He says that there are 25 per cent. fewer houses now on the market as a direct result of the introduction of HIPs. Can buyers, sellers and the economy of this nation afford to risk such damage?
	Yes, there are many things wrong with the existing system of buying and selling houses. And yes, as in any organisation, there are unscrupulous estate agents, just as there arefrom time to time, believe it or notdodgy politicians. But that does not stop us. What is the point of substituting an untried, untested and largely uncontrolled new regime that will end up costing everyone extra?
	I would like publicly to thank one of my constituents, Mr. Nick Lacey. Mr. Lacey is an enlightened estate agent who wants to see his industry properly licensed. He has pointed out to me the pitfalls of this new law and offered the only plausible explanation for why it was introduced: prejudice against the professionals. Someone in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister must class estate agents, lawyers and surveyors as some form of dodgy pond life, because the law that they have introduced is designed to take house sales right out of traditional hands. That is the ultimate aim. The future belongs to a new generation of Arthur Daleys, and an industry of greedy pack providers we have never even heard of. Even their own trade association admits that the structure is wide open to criticism and to cowboys. Let us stop this. Let us look again at the provisions before they come into force and ensure that they do not get through the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. Roger Gale, Anne Milton, Angela Browning, Mr. David Wilshire, Tony Baldry, Mark Pritchard, Ann Winterton and Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Housing Act 2004 (Amendment)

Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Housing Act 2004 so as to repeal provisions relating to Home Information Packs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 May, and to be printed [Bill 167].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Commons Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill will provide for the better management of common land in England and Wales. It will ensure that some of our most valued uplands, open spaces and conservation sites remain effectively protected and recorded, and overhauls the existing patchwork of antiquated controls to bring them up to 21st century standards of better regulation. I know that the general principles behind the Bill have been widely welcomed, and I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who has done a great deal of work on the Bill.
	At the core of the Bill are more than 2,000 square miles of registered common land in England and Wales, representing around 4 per cent. of our land area. Those places are fundamental to the character of our countryside. Some people might have in mind the ponies of Dartmoor, walkers will think of the high fells of the lake district, and families perhaps cherish the local common for games and walks on a Sunday afternoon. All these places are common land, and the Bill seeks to ensure that such places will be properly protected and managed for future generations. The Government have already undertaken limited legislation for common land in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, providing a general public right of access to commons. This Bill deals with other substantive issues on common land, such as their management and protection.
	It might be helpful to explain what is meant by the term common land. There is a popular misconception that common land is land owned by all of us, or even by no onethat it is, in effect, a public resource. It is not quite that simple. All common land is owned by someone, often a private landowner. Since time immemorial, however, common land has been subject to rights for certain people other than the landowner to use the land for their own benefitfor example, to graze livestock or take fallen wood for fuel. It is those rights over another person's land that make common land special.
	Common land is important for many reasons. I have already spoken of the tremendous recreational resource that it provides. It also remains a fundamental part of the agricultural economy for many upland farmers, for whom commoning has been a way of life for generations. However, common land is also a crucial reservoir of biodiversity. Much of it has never been improved or enclosed, so many commons are havens for wildlife, while the absence of ploughing leaves many prehistoric remains intact.
	Remarkably, around half the common land in England is designated as a site of special scientific interest. The wealth of information that we now have about both commons and SSSIs, and the action that we are taking to improve their condition, is vital to our overall work on biodiversity. We need to take action to protect biodiversity across the whole of the countryside, as well as in our most special and valuable sites.

John Bercow: Will the regulations provided for in clause 3(5) appertaining to the register of common land be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?

Elliot Morley: I will deal with those details later in my speech.
	I do not need to tell the House that protecting our biodiversity is important, or that healthy, thriving and diverse ecosystems are essential to a healthy, thriving and diverse society. Biodiversity should be valued not just for its own sake but for all its benefits and opportunitiesnot only environmental benefits, but economic and social benefits, such as health, recreation and education.
	Surveys have told us that people are more concerned about the quality of their natural environment than anything else, and biodiversity is a major part of that. Natural green spaces such as commons provide whole communities with access to recreation and a chance to experience nature at first hand. In the Cotswoldsat Minchinhampton common, for examplethere is a strong sense of identity and community. The limestone downland is maintained through grazing by commons animals. Early purple orchids and cowslips can be seen there now, and later in the year there will be orchids, chalkhill blue butterflies and fritillaries. Large numbers of people visit from Stroud, Gloucester and the surrounding area, making use of local facilities and bringing many benefits to the local economy.
	That all makes biodiversity an essential component of sustainable development. That is why the Government are firmly committed to achieving all our biodiversity targets for 2010, both at home and internationally. The England biodiversity strategy sets out our plans to integrate biodiversity into policy making and practice across all sectors and at all levels. We have achieved much already, including through new measures in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, but more is needed. We must also continue to report on and measure our progress, and to communicate and demonstrate clearly the value of biodiversity so that all its benefits can be realised.
	In the context of common land, that poses a particular challenge. A lack of effective management has resulted in only 57 per cent. of SSSI commons being in good or improving conditionsignificantly less than the 72 per cent. of all SSSIs in similar condition. That is why the Commons Bill is one of our key tools for promoting biodiversity in this country. It will facilitate local management of commons where none has been achievable in the past, helping us to achieve our public service agreement target to get 95 per cent. of SSSIs into favourable condition by 2010.
	As I have discovered, however, common land is never a straightforward subject. There is a complex web of interaction on our commons, which we must address holistically. This Bill provides for improved management and protection of commons, and brings the registration system up to date. Let me explain briefly how it works, and I will be glad to touch on the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow).
	Part 1 of the Bill is about the registration of common land. It builds on the Commons Registration Act 1965, which created registers of every common and town or village green in England and Wales. Unfortunately, the 1965 Act was flawed: registration was a snapshot only, with little provision for keeping records up to date. The Bill provides for the registers to be updated, and kept that way, with provision for electronic registers.

Elfyn Llwyd: As one who used to practise in this area of law, I agree with the Minister that the 1965 Act was flawed. However, the proper implementation of the provisions in this welcome Bill will require some finance for local government. The problem in the past has been that there has been a Cinderella service, usually involving one man and his dog.

Elliot Morley: The Government accept that there may be financial implications, and we are prepared to put money into the start of the process, particularly for the purpose of professional skill building. I shall say more about that shortly. There will be an opportunity to rectify past mistakes relating to the 1965 Act, which have been raised by a number of organisations and people. The idea is to balance the scope to remove or add land to registers.
	Part 1 also prohibits the severance of rights of common. Severance happens when rights of common attached to a farm adjoining a common are sold separately from the farm itself. That can mean that rights are exercised by people with no ties or obligations to the commoning community. It can lead to disruptive and damaging grazing practices. Our stakeholders asked us to ban severance, which we have done, but we have also listened to those who have said in another place that some local exceptions are needed. We propose to table amendments in the Standing Committee to respond to fears expressed by the Dartmoor Commoners' Council that it will not be able to exercise certain powers of a commons association. We take those fears seriously.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Buckingham that the regulations for which clause 3(5) provides will be subject to negative resolution.
	Clause 15 updates and clarifies the law relating to the registration of town or village greens. Greens are a vital part of our culture: they provide invaluable breathing space, right on the doorstep. The concept is ancient, but those areas remain as relevant today as they were when the locals used them for archery practice and community dancing. Yet greens are also a cause of controversy, particularly when development proposals arise. We have tried to strike a fair balance, and to provide certainty by consolidating the existing law on new registration of greens based on long use.
	Significant Government amendments were tabled to clause 15 in another place, where we were told that there was a lack of clarity. We shall return to one or two of them in Committee. In the background is the high-profile greens registration case known as Trap Grounds, which was recently heard by the Judicial Committee of the other place and now awaits its ruling.

Tom Levitt: I support the principle of the Bill, but I should like my hon. Friend to clarify one aspect of the registration of town greens. In two cases in my constituencyin Fairfield, where planning permission exists for some social housing, and in New Mills, where planning permission exists for a magistrates courtapplications for town green status have been lodged after the granting of planning permission. Clearly the purpose is not to respect and preserve the sites, but to frustrate a planning application. In both cases the development has already been delayed by several years, with no end in sight. I hope my hon. Friend can assure me that the Bill will clarify the position, and will make it less easy for town green applications to be used maliciously to frustrate the legitimate planning process.

Elliot Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is possible that people will use the Bill's provisions to frustrate developments that are important to communities, but the advantage of the Bill is that it will speed up the process, so it will not be possible to drag cases out for long periods. If my hon. Friend writes to me or to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, we shall be happy to examine the cases that he mentioned, and to contact him when we have done so.
	We recognise the importance of the role of commons registration authorities in delivering the objectives of part 1. That is why we announced last yearthis is relevant to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt)that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was providing 100,000 to set up a professional association for commons registration officers, to help promote dialogue between local and central government on the implementation of the Bill. We will also fund the new burdens that the Bill will impose on local authorities.
	A reliable registration system is key to the proper management of common land, and part 2 of the Bill is the key to that improved management. It allows the creation of commons associations with powers to manage commons locally and sustainably. Many of the benefits of common land come from its use in agriculture. It is the use of locally adapted breeds and customary practices such as hefting that has created the high landscape and biodiversity values in areas such as the Welsh and Cumbrian uplands. However, agriculture is changing. Many commons have deteriorated because of a lack of effective management. Some upland commons are being over-grazed, and under-grazing on lowland commons has led to scrubbing up and a consequent decline in their biodiversity and accessibility. However, those are not areas in which the Government can intervene easily. The Department is making common land eligible for entry into the higher level environmental stewardship scheme, as well as providing a supplement that recognises difficulties for communally managed land. However, financial incentives alone will not bring about improved management.
	Commons can be managed from day to day only by those who share and have a real stake in the resource. Part 2 will recognise that, by putting in place a framework for resolving agricultural management problems on common land. It will allow the creation of local management bodiescommons associationsto manage agriculture, vegetation and the exercising of common rights. Some commons are already managed through voluntary local bodies, but they lack the powers to enforce their management decisions on everyone. At the moment, just one disagreeing voice can upset the management of a whole common. The statutory powers that will be given to commons associations will overcome that by enabling them to make and enforce rules.
	I should stress that a commons association will be established only with the support of those who use and manage a common. A top-down approach cannot be imposed on those with an interest in a common, and we want to work with the grain, not against it.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend talks about support for the new associations. How will he gauge that support? Will there have to be 100 per cent. support, or substantial support? He knows the agricultural sector as well as I do, and finding agreement on a way forward is not always easy.

Elliot Morley: Yes, I have met the odd difficult farmer, so I know what my hon. Friend is talking about. We will be looking for majority support. We will not have a situation in which one person or a minority could have a veto. However, there will have to be a way of establishing majority support. Such issues are best explored in Committee, and I know that my hon. Friend will have an interest in that.

Peter Atkinson: In the case of a large upland common in which most interest was from those with common rights, does the Minister envisage that those people would form a substantial majority of the association, or that they would have, for example, 50 per cent. of the vote?

Elliot Morley: Obviously, I would expect people with a direct involvement in a common to have a majority, but there are many people with interests in commons. I do not think that it is unreasonable that the structure of a commons association should be modelled on successful bodies that exist now, with a range of interests represented. For example, I think that there is a veterinary surgeon on the Dartmoor Commoners Council, who can give advice on animal welfare. I am not saying that that would be needed for every single association, but there should be flexibility so that the make-up of an association reflects its local area. Again, we can explore such matters in Committee.

Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister say a little more about the higher level stewardship scheme that he mentioned a few minutes ago? How many commons have applied for the money already? What will happen to the money? Will it go to the people with grazing rights, or a committee, and will that distort the dynamics of the management?

Elliot Morley: Few commons are in the higher level scheme, although there are one or two. There are few commons in the scheme because that requires a management agreement, which means that there must be grazing at a certain stocking density, or specific kinds of management. Such an agreement thus requires the support of the majority of commoners on meeting the obligations of the agreement.
	At the moment, there is no way of enforcing any agreement on the common. Many commoners would like to be in the higher level scheme, but they have not been able to join it because they have not been able to reach their side of the legally binding agreement on the management of the land. Under the Bill, the commons association will be able to agree the rules, apply them and meet its obligations under the terms of the agri-environment schemes. It will also be able to share the income out according to a formula that it decides. The Bill will give commons associations the power to enter into such arrangements and decide how they are going to share out the income, as they cannot do at present. That is one of the advantages of the Bill, as I know from talking to commoners and from my days of dealing with agri-environment schemes.

David Drew: Is my hon. Friend envisaging some democratic representation on commons associations? Parish councils, in particular, often take responsibility for commons. My hon. Friend mentioned Minchinhampton, and I hope to talk more about that later. However, organisations mentioned in the Bill, such as the National Trust, have management responsibilities but are not always thought well of by those who have conflicting responsibilities. How will the associations evolve? Those are key issues.

Elliot Morley: They are important issues. Generally speaking, we would expect the associations to be elected so that they represent the interests of the groups for which they speak. We do not want to be too prescriptive at this stage, because different circumstances apply in different parts of the country, and the make-up of the associations may also need to be different. However, we want the systems to be democratic, open and transparent, and I know that my hon. Friend will lead on such details in Committee.
	The Bill also deals with controls over works and fencing on common land. For 80 years, we have had a consent regime under the Law of Property Act 1925. It was recognised even then that commons required special protection to keep them open, unspoilt and accessible. That approach remains as relevant and necessary as everperhaps more so in this modern world. But the fact that commons are unique and warrant that extra protection does not mean that the system is perfect.
	We have listened extensively to those who have said that the consent regime is at times unnecessarily slow and bureaucratic. The controls must be proportionate to the impact of proposed works. The Bill will enable us to modernise and streamline the system so that it is truly fit for purpose in the 21st century.
	Students of section 194 of the 1925 Act will find much in part 3 of the Bill familiar. But in consolidating the existing controls into the Bill, we have done our best to iron out inconsistencies and provide clarity. We also aim to resolve situations in which works that might make sense on a common were completely prohibited by the existing management rules on certain commons.
	There was considerable debate in the other place about whether minor works should be excluded from the consent regime. The reality is that enforcement against works with no material effect on access is extremely unlikely. But we have taken powers in the Bill to prescribe works that ought to be exempted from the consenting regime, and we will consult on the use of this power.
	There were also strong views in the other place about who may take enforcement action against unlawful works on commons. The Bill will allow any person to ask the court to enforce against future unlawful works on commons. This is our response to arguments that those currently entitled to seek court action often fail to do so.
	Part 3 of the Bill also re-enacts existing powers for local authorities to protect common land with no known owner. We shall also bring forward some minor amendments in Standing Committee to ensure that local authorities' existing powers to make management schemes for unclaimed common land remain relevant and up to date.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend has just reaffirmed that the Bill provides that people can apply to the county court in respect of future unlawful works. I think that the date mentioned in the Bill is 28 January 2005. However, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000the CROW Actputs in place many obstacles to access, especially with regard to fences erected before that date. There is a clear conflict between that legislation and this Bill: how will it be resolved?

Elliot Morley: I am not sure that there is a conflict. My hon. Friend asks an important question, although the date in question is actually June 2005. The new power allows any individual to bring a court case over illegal activities on commons carried out from that date, although local authorities will still be able to act in respect of activities carried out before it. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that that date should not be taken as the cut-off for legal action. We want to strike the appropriate balance with a significant new power to deal with illegal activities on commons, but that balance will, of course, be open to debate in Standing Committee.
	Finally, I commend the scrutiny of the Bill in the other place, where it was the subject of a good and constructive debate. I followed closely the progress of the common land forum, many of whose recommendations are included in the Bill. In that forum, the question of access was very controversial, but it has been dealt with by the CROW Act and so does not affect the debate on this Bill.
	The Bill is mainly about putting in place the sensible management and registration provisions that a wide range of stakeholders and organisations with a common interest in ensuring the proper, effective and sustainable management of our common land have been requesting for many years. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to do that, and I commend it to the House.

James Paice: As the Minister said, this Bill has already been given the technical scrutiny that we expect of the other place. That is to be welcomed, as is the Bill in general. It is not a matter of great partisanship, as legislation in respect of common land commands wide support in the House.
	The attitude of hon. Members to the matter of commons and greens will be influenced by their experiences. Traditionally, my own county of Cambridgeshire has relatively small commons, which are generally attached to local communities and usually cover an area of no more than 50 acres. Some of them have been covered by their own Acts of Parliament for many hundreds of years, but the Minister was right to point out that, conversely, commons elsewhere in England and Wales might cover many thousands of acres, with various different owners of the rights to grazing, pannage, turbary or estover.
	The Minister was also right to say that about 3 per cent. of the land in England, and 8 per cent. of the land in Wales, is common land, covering a little over 500,000 hectares. However, 80 per cent. of land is privately owned, with almost half coming under the sites of special scientific interest designation. The Opposition entirely agree with the Government's desire further to enhance and protect our common land.
	The Bill will have far-reaching effects. It is largely about remedying the deficiencies of the Commons Registration Act 1965, which was introduced by a previous Labour Government. However, given that the very first Act in respect of common land was passed in 1235, I doubt that this Bill will be the last word on the matterespecially as the Government, I regret to say, are ducking some of the most serious weaknesses arising from the 1965 Act.
	We support the improvement of environmental conditions of common land and agree with encouraging sustainable management practice through the introduction of regulatory bodies, but the Government are addressing the problem of over-grazing on common land a bit late. It was the introduction of the single payment scheme last year that reduced farmers' incentives to increase their herd and flock sizes, and I hope that commons associations, Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales and others do not have the problem of trying to deal with under-grazing, to which the Minister referred, as well as the over-grazing that has been a problem in the past. In principle, we agree that greater collective action is a welcome move towards achieving improved environmental and agricultural management. The Minister touched on the fact that the success of the Dartmoor commoners council is testimony to that.
	The first part of the Bill deals with the registration of common land and with town and village greens. According to the explanatory notes:
	This replaces and improves the registration system under the 1965 Act, but using the same registers prepared under that Act.
	We are concerned that there are known to be many deficiencies in the existing registers, which the Bill does not provide an opportunity to remedy. They particularly relate to the number of registered rights, which the Bill does nothing to tackle. There are numerous examples: for example, grazing rights may have been claimed that were significantly in excess of those traditionally attached to the land through the old system of levancy and couchancy.
	It would be absurd not to understand the Government's reluctance to enter into what we all know to be a minefield, and I understand that there are also human rights concerns. However, I suggest that where there are obvious cases of deception, there cannot be any fair claim on human rights grounds. For example, I know of a common in my constituency where rights were claimed and registered by a person whose property had never previously had any such rights. If the Bill is to prove durable, it should enable people sensitively and sensibly to challenge previous rights.
	The Bill prohibits severance of the rights of common, with the exceptions applying to commons associations, Natural England and CCW. I wholly support the principle of ending severance, but I question the logic of severed land being handed to Natural England and the others. While the intention may be that they do not use the rights, thereby dealing with over-grazing, there is nevertheless nothing in the Bill to stop them using them, perhaps becoming grazers themselves, or possibly cutting peat, catching fish or harvesting bracken. That could mean all those bodies having more rights over common land than are currently held by established voluntary commons and statutory commons associations.
	I heard what the Minister said about the Dartmoor commoners council and the amendments that will be proposed. I have had discussions with the council over its concerns. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the Bill will result in a fair situation for the Dartmoor commoners council. In particular, will it let the council continue to hold the rights of registration, creation and severance that it holds under the present legislation? Other commons associations also deliver benefits for people on lands that are well managed for agricultural, environmental and public benefits, and I hope that they, too, can be dealt with under the amendments.
	There is also a question why Natural England and the other organisations should need the rights that come from severance. If associations are to be responsible for ensuring that commons are not over-grazed or in other ways exploited, it should surely be to those associations that the severed rights are granted. Alternatively, they could revert to the owner of the dominant tenement.
	Clause 13 deals with surrender and extinguishment and correctly ends the practice of common law extinguishing rights, but in doing so disposes of certain circumstances where extinguishment might be desirable. For example, rights in gross created by severance at some previous time in history that may have been abandoned, especially after passing through a few generations, would be an ideal way of reducing the total number of over-grazing rights. However, that opportunity would be lost under the Bill. It seems contradictory to use human rights as an excuse for not removing rights that were either fraudulently obtained or have been abandoned, while clause 15 of the same Bill would confiscate land from a private owner by allowing it to be registered as a green and, in effect, to become worthless. Where are the human rights in that example?
	The Minister and the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), who has left the Chamber, said that the provisions largely repeat those in existing legislation, notably the 1965 Act, but there are serious concerns that for land claiming village green status they have become increasingly relaxed. Opponents to new developments can argue that land should be registered as a village green if they can prove that local inhabitants have indulged in so-called lawful sports and pastimes for at least 20 years. I have great regard for the Minister, but he may not have taken on board the seriousness with which that issue is viewed not only by his hon. Friend but in several parts of the country.
	As long ago as 18 January, on Third Reading in another place, my noble Friend Lady Byford referred to case studies where the 20-year use rulefor example, simply for walking dogshad been employed by activists opposed to housing proposals to enforce the registration as a village green of land that few reasonable people would consider as such. Lord Bach responded:
	I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has just said. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we will study the details of her remarks and that I shall write to her.[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 686.]
	I understand that no response has yet been received by Lady Byford. Perhaps tonight the Minister will take the opportunity to elaborate on behalf of his noble Friend.
	It seems that such housing developments are not isolated cases. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is dealing with a similar case in his constituency where a small number of local individuals opposed to the development of a health village on reclamation land proved that they had used the land for lawful pastimes for 20 years, thus qualifying it to be registered as a town green. Fortunately, the court ruled against the application for registration and building work restarted, but there is concern that the Bill could allow the case to be reopened, which would further delay the building of that much-needed community facility. Will the Government consider how to address that issue? Can the Minister tell us whether the Department has made any assessment of the amount of land eligible under the 20-year rule?
	In addition to that, the creation and registration of rights will apply only to those commons registered under the 1965 Act, through Natural England and the CCW. To gain such rights, commons associations set up outside that Act and voluntary commons associations will be required to register under the Bill, which will be a time-consuming and costly process. Will the Minister tell the House how many commons associations outside the Act there are, and will he assure us that the advantages of registering outweigh the monetary cost of registration and the administrative burden that will fall on those associations? Would not it be more suitable to allow existing voluntary commons associations to remain operating as they are, while becoming part of a larger statutory organisation? Such an umbrella structure could provide democratic discussion and ruling at local level, with a more central administrative control. Moreover, it would create a better national framework for sharing information and promoting good advice. Have the Government considered a point of contact in DEFRA or another part of the Government so that the various commons associations have a central database? I do not mean a literal database, but somebody with the knowledge to provide advice and co-ordination, and develop expertise within the Department and deliver it to all the commons associations. There seems to be general agreement that the 1965 Act has not been entirely successful. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House exactly how many commons and green are still in dispute. Do we know what are the chief disputes?
	On the Government's plans to establish electronic registers, I welcome the Minister's commitment to provide funding. I hope that another Department's funding is not cut accordingly, which is, of course, what usually happens on such occasions. Nevertheless, I am somewhat concerned about the establishment of an electronic register, given the Department's track record. We only have to go back a few years to the cattle tracing scheme that was introduced following the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease or the mapping exercise following the CROW Actthe Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000to find that problems surround such schemes. Of course, none of us needs reminding of the current debacle at the Rural Payments Agency. So I hope that the Minister can tell the House how much the proposed commons register will cost to establish and maintain. Will he assure us that the scheme will be more successful than the Department's previous computer projects?
	In England, the commons registration authorities are largely county councils, with some district councils and unitary authorities. Do the Government know whether councils and authorities have adequate staff, with the necessary qualifications and experience; or will recruitment and training be required? That issue is one not just of funding, but of having competent staff.
	The objective of part 2 is to enable the appropriate national authority to establish commons associations, thus enabling commoners to work together to manage agricultural activities and vegetation on a voluntary basis. The Bill will allow commons associations to enter into agri-environmental schemes, which, of course, we welcome. However, it is essential that such associations truly represent those with interests in the common. I listened with interest to the exchanges on the matter that the Minister had with Members on both sides of the House. It is important that such organisations are formed not just of a small group of people who can create an association to exercise power over others, possibly to their detriment. I hope that the Minister can tell the House a little more about the composition of associations and particularly whether a minimum level of support will be needed to establish a commons association.
	Moreover, what will be the relationship between such commons associations and those who may have leased other rights from the landowner? The Minister made the perfectly proper point that most commons are privately owned. The owner may well have leased other rights, such as sporting rights, to third parties. What will be the relationship between the holders of such rights and a commons association? Obviously, the association's role may well impinge on the holder of sporting rights and, of course, vice versa.
	Part 3, which deals with protection of commons from unlawful works, is entirely welcome, as the Minister implied. Of course, such works can include building or the erection of fences on common land. Of course in many areas, such as my constituency, they can involve the incursion of unlawful Traveller encampments. So measures to protect common land from such works and to speed the process are, of course, welcome, but I am concerned about whether the minimum additional regulatory burden will be placed on the commoners who want to achieve that aim. The Minister said that the Government plan to introduce exemptions from the necessary consent process, but I should be grateful if the   Minister gave us a little more information. In particular, what will happen if the owner of rights wishes to erect temporary fencing, perhaps to reintroduce grazing on a common or to keep stock out of an especially sensitive part of a common?
	Open commons with roads going through themI have examples in my constituencywere fine when there was a small amount of fairly slow-moving traffic, but there is a problem given the increasing amount of traffic nowadays. People can stand on some of our commons and watch cars and motor bikes going through at 50 mph plusperhaps they should not travel at that speed, but they doand many people will not risk either their stock or the likelihood of a legal case by allowing their stock to cross open roads. Fencing is becoming more and more important. I hope that the Government will consider either an exemption or some sort of fast-tracking of inconsequential works so that only the more significant proposals have to go through the full process.
	Finally, I am concerned that, yet again, in the Bill Ministers are taking immense powers to repeal other legislationin this case, under clauses 36 and 44. In particular, the National Trust has raised the issue that its own Acts could be repealed or amended by virtue of a Minister giving commons associations powers that supersede those of the National Trust. I know that the Minister is aware of that important issue and I hope that he will reconsider it in Committee.
	As I have said, and as I am sure will come through in the debate, there is clearly broad support for the Bill. The Conservatives strongly support it, but there is scope for improvement. Like the Minister, I pay tribute to the immense work done in the other place, but there are still a few things to resolve and there is still some clarity to be achieved. My experience of the Minister who will take the Bill through Committee is that he is open to good suggestions and sensible ideas and I look forward to that consideration and to making improvements to some of the areas that I have touched on. I welcome the Bill. It is a sensible measure that brings commons legislation up to date and improves some of the shortcomings of the previous legislation. I regret that it does not improve all of them, but we will seek to amend it in Committee.

Paddy Tipping: It is already clear that we are talking about an area of the law and of policy that is archaic, highly technical and very complicated. The Bill is a useful vehicle to take the discussion forward. It has been a long time coming and there has been a lot of background work on it.
	The Bill is important in two significant ways. First, it helps the Government to meet their own target of getting 95 per cent. of sites of special scientific interest in a favourable condition by 2010. That is an important aim in itself. It is particularly important in relation to national parks. For example, a third of England's common land is in Cumbria and the Lake district has a high density of village greens. Secondly, the Bill facilitates common structures and organisational changes. Common holders can come together on a statutory basis to bring about change and apply for agri-environment benefits.
	I am not entirely sure whether those processesthose organisational changes in the Billwill be a driver for change as much as the new agri-environment schemes will be. The way in which we pay our farmers is changing significantly. The importance of mid-term review and the switch from payments for subsidies on production to payments for public good has been undervalued and under-recognised. However, the trend seen in the changes will continue. It seems inevitable to me that a fixed common agricultural policy budget, new accession states and a review of the CAP, which is promised for 2008, will bring about a major change in the way in which we support and pay farmers. If we are moving in that direction, and that is the right direction, we need to ensure that all new legislationthe Bill includedtakes account of the wider public benefit and not just the private benefit to farmers and landowners.
	As I said, this is a highly technical Bill and I pay credit to the Minister's officials, who have worked extremely hard on it. Throughout the country, there is recognition of the way in which the Bill team and officials have gone out and listened to different views and tried to find consensus, which has not always been easy. This is a good example of a Bill that has been improved because the Department was prepared to listen to views in the field. As has been said, the Bill was subject to substantial scrutiny in the other place. A great deal of expertise has been brought to bear on it and many amendments were made. Nevertheless, the Bill should have been published in draft and subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, as it is an ambitious task to introduce it and make changes during its progress through Parliament. I accept the Minister's desire to make progress and take an available legislative slot, but if ever a Bill needed detailed scrutiny, this is such a measure.

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, as a labyrinth of legal measures surrounds the issue. Putney and Wimbledon commons in my constituency are covered by measures on urban commons introduced in 1925. We must be careful that we understand all the Bill's ramifications, so he has made a very good point.

Paddy Tipping: Let me make a confession. I am not sure that I understand all the Bill's ramifications, but I have learned rapidly and I expect that a number of issues will be discussed in Committee, as the Minister suggested. It is a fundamental principle of mine, however, that complicated, technical Bills should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I accept that Ministers in the Department wanted to take advantage of the opportunity offered by an unforeseen legislative slot, but that is not necessarily the best way forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree, but is the hon. Gentleman surprised that the programme motion says that proceedings on the Bill must be completed by next Thursday?

Paddy Tipping: I am surprised but, as I hope to serve in Committee, I am pleased as well. I am confident that a range of issues need to be probed and scrutinised in Committee, and we have already heard examples of such issues on Second Reading.
	The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the royal commission report that was published in 1958 and eventually led to the introduction of the Commons Registration Act 1965. That was the first leg of work after the royal commission report. The second leg was the CROW Act, which provided rights of access over common land. The Bill is the third leg: it is right to concentrate on management and biodiversity, but it has taken us almost 50 years since the royal commission report to complete the legislative process.
	I am particularly keen on clause 15, which has been discussed this evening. I want to see more village greens. We are currently awaiting a judgment from the Lords on the Trap Grounds case, which has cast the law into turmoil. If people make an application after usage for a number of years, it is not acceptable for the land owner, on learning of that application, to stop it because they object to it. However, the Court of Appeal decided that it was acceptable, so I am delighted that the Bill overcomes that hurdle. Village greens are important for a range of recreational and social reasons.
	I am particularly keen to have a village green at Keenwell in Calverton. Local people have come together and submitted an application to create a new village green in an area that has been used informally for more than 20 years. The site has historical connections, but it needs to be improved, and there are plans in Calverton to try to do so. That site is next to Dark lanean evocative name and a traditional right of way through to the south of the village. There are plans to develop the western side of Dark lane for housing and to bring an access road through Keenwell. Clearly, different interests are at play here, but it is important that when an area has been in legitimate use over many years, applications to develop it should be considered very carefully. No planning application has yet been made in respect of Dark lane. I hope that Gedling borough council, which has to deal with the application, will wait for the outcome of the application for village green status at Keenwell. I have met the council and it is familiar with the argument: I hope that it will wait for the legislation to come through and then make a balanced consideration about the need for housing as against the need to enhance the environment in Calverton.
	People feel strongly about their recreational spaces and their common land. In the city of Nottingham, people really appreciate the 130 acres of allotted recreation grounds. They have been laid out in three miles of public walks and five public parks or recreation grounds. Mrs. June Perry has corresponded with the Department about the issue. She wanted to know the status of allotted recreation grounds and wrote to the   Department in February. Unfortunately, she has received no response, but she wants to see the allotted recreation grounds on the commons register. She says in her letter:
	It seems to me to be a strange anomaly that Allotted Recreation Grounds, which have been covered by all the Commons Acts since 1845, have not been placed automatically on the Register of Commons and Town and Village Greens.
	She goes on to acknowledge that it is a complicated area, but she suggests that
	all that is needed to register an Allotted Recreation Ground should be authenticated copies of the relevant parts of the original documents.
	By mentioning Mrs. Perry and her desire and drive to improve recreation and informal spaces right in the centre of Nottingham, I hope that we will be able to make some progress on the case that she makes.
	At the heart of the Bill, as we have already heard, is the notion of commons associations. I hope that they will provide a real mechanism to manage and improve common land. Some already exist in a voluntary form. It is vital, however, not just to pass the legislation and put the process in place, but to go out and promote the commons associations. It has already been suggested that, because of costs and administrative burdens, some voluntary associations will be reluctant to make that step change. It is easy for us to pass legislation without fully considering the steps necessary to create the new commons associations. It is relatively easy to see how large commons could be managed this way, but many of our commons are small and fragmented pieces of land and the new sort of association does not fit so easily there. There has been talk of joining up these pieces of common land, perhaps on a county basis, but unless there is real commitment from the people involved in those land holdings, that may be difficult to achieve. The issue requires further thought and consideration.
	Assuming that support and finance for the new commons associations is available, one of the key issues to consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has already said, is who should be on them. Should it just be the commoners, or are there other bodies that can bring expertise to the associationfor example, the National Trust and the national parks have got a lot of resources? If we are offering finance and support, we must bear in mind the need to deliver wider public goods and, possibly, to involve other stakeholders in the association.
	I assume that the term, member, in clause 30 includes all registered commoners. If a new association is set up, it seems to me that all commoners with grazing rights should be part of it. The Minister has already alluded to the provision in clause 30 on elections to the association, and perhaps he will bring us up to speed with the thinking on what membership of an association means either in his reply or in Committee. He will also be aware of the suggestion that statutory commons associations might better be termed statutory commons committees in order to distinguish them from existing bodies.
	This is a good Bill, but it could be improved and strengthened. I accept that it should be possible to deregister commons, but I am concerned about the provision in clause 16 that it may not be necessary to exchange comparative land for commons of less than 200 sq m. Many commons are small, and, they will be eaten away piecemeal unless we are careful. Again, I look forward to the debate on replacing deregistered common land on small commons.
	As the Minister has said, clause 45 deals with the powers of local authorities, which are permissive powers rather than duties. There has been some discussion in the Chamber this evening whether local authorities have got the resources to pursue such matters, and I suspect that issues connected with common land will be relatively low on the agenda for many hard-pressed local authorities. Some commons have no record of ownership, and there is a strong case to argue, as the royal commission has done, that local authorities should have the power to have that land vested in them, so that they can make the necessary improvements.
	A survey of commons has been undertaken in my area, Nottinghamshire, and it found that many of them are fragmented and piecemeal. Of the 74 commons surveyed, 11 are totally encroached upon, eight are partially encroached upon and seven are neglected, which reinforces the case for local authorities to take common land, to have it vested in them and to improve it.

David Drew: My hon. Friend has discussed the wonderful notion of devolution to the appropriate authority, which surely includes a role for parish and town councils rather than district and country councils. Does he agree that parish and town councils are likely to have the greatest interest vested in them, because such matters are germane to their immediate localities?

Paddy Tipping: I certainly agree with that. I believe that the local environment is extremely important to local people and that the more we can localise decision making around relatively small pieces of land, the more issues can be identified and resolved. I very much look forward to town and parish councils having greater responsibilities and powers.
	I want to return to a matter on which I intervened on the Minister earlierthe cut-off date of 28 June 2005 for unlawful works. I am delighted to be told that that does not apply to local authorities. However, I know from direct experience that large areas of land where the public have a right to roam freely under the CROW Act are fenced off. I seek assurances that the 28 June cut-off date will not prevent action on that. It would be a travesty if the monumental piece of legislation that delivered the right to roam were to be frustrated.
	On making an application to a county court as regards obstruction, I am not entirely clear what powers the court will have. I presume that if the order is not complied with, there can be a reapplication for a breach. Under rights of way legislation, magistrates courts have the power to fine. Highways authorities now have the opportunity to come and remove obstructions. What are the powers of the county court if unlawful restrictions are not removed?

Elfyn Llwyd: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. A court would have an inherent power to apply a fine and/or to imprison for a breach of its own order.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for that advice and look forward to the Minister making the Government's position clearer.
	I am conscious that I have highlighted a whole range of aspects of the Bill that can be strengthened and improved, but I want to reinforce the fact that it is a good piece of legislation that builds on the royal commission's work, with registration, access, and now biodiversity.
	There is a view in the countryside that the countryside should never changethat it should be preserved in aspic. That cannot be right. The countryside needs to change to survive. A changing, working countryside is a healthy countryside. I am pleased that the Bill is a piece of revising legislation that will enable change to take place. What is important for the countryside is not that change should take place, but the scope, scale and timetable of that change.

Roger Williams: At this stage in a debate on agricultural matters, I usually draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. On this occasion, I do not believe that I have an interest to declare. Having scrutinised the register of common rights, I can find no mention of the dominant tenement that I occupy. I therefore presume that I have no common rightsnor, as I understand it, am I likely to be able to acquire new common rights under the Bill.
	Commons are a relic of the old manorial system of land tenure. It is not surprising that it is a complex subject, because the history goes back a very long way and people have huge attachment to their common rights and to any commons on which they exercise them.
	Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because we believe that town and village greens are important for the communities in which they are situated and provide them with opportunities to exercise and to enjoy pastimes. Unfortunately, such greens are often encroached upon. We welcome the powers in the Bill to ensure that that does not continue. We recognise the importance of commons, particularly to agriculture and to remote farming communities whose common rights are the backbone of their business. Without those rights, the business would often not survive. Commoners are fiercely possessive of their rights and their commons, and know them well. In many families those rights go back generations and the attachment is great.
	Because of the huge size of commons, many of the activities that take place there are co-operative. Farmers come together to gather sheep or to shepherd, which builds up a feeling of community and togetherness. In Wales, as I am sure the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) will agree, the Welsh language is an important part of those activities and contributes to the feeling of being Welsh and being part of the agricultural community.
	It has been pointed out that commons represent a not insignificant amount of land in both England and Walesabout 3 per cent. in England and 8 per cent. in Wales. It is important for us to understand how that land is to be managed and how it can be best organised for the benefit of the people who have rights and ownership. Of the 540,000 hectares of common land in England and Wales, almost 70,000 hectares are situated in Brecon and Radnorshire, so in my constituency I have about 12 per cent. of all the common land in England and Wales.
	When I spent an interesting couple of years as chairman of the Brecon Beacons national park, I got to know commoners and their common land well. One issue that is often raised is overgrazing. I know areas where overgrazing takes place, but it is not to the benefit of anybody. It is not beneficial to farmers, whose stock does not flourish, or to biodiversity, to the appearance of the landscape or to the people who want to enjoy it for recreational purposes. A far bigger danger will be undergrazing, particularly as a result of the reform of the common agricultural policy. I hope that one outcome of the Bill will be the development of management techniques to overcome undergrazing, which threatens our common land. Common land is important for agriculture, recreation, nature conservation, landscape and archaeology. The Bill provides a way forward for management plans to protect all those aspects.
	There are one or two omissions from the Bill. We are disappointed that the commons commissioners are abolished by the Bill. They did excellent work following the Commons Registration Act 1965, and although there has been criticism of that Act and of some of the inaccuracies and associated difficulties, much good work was done and the commissioners became proficient and knowledgeable about commons and the related legislation.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's comments and I appeared many times in tribunals. The main flaw of the 1965 Act is that, when mistakes were made, it was a devil of a job to rectify them without, for example, an application to the High Court, which was beyond most people's means.

Roger Williams: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman says, the main difficulty was to rectify mistakes. That was a complaint not about the commissioners, who were implementing the legislation, but about the legislation itself. The Bill will ensure that some matters, such as severance, attachment, creation and variation, can be addressed by commons registration authorities. I am not clear how those issues will be determined, mostly by county councils, but in some cases by district councils, and in Wales by unitary authorities. Does the Minister anticipate that decisions will be taken by officers of the authority or by elected members, or will there always have to be an independent inquiry to determine applications, to give both applicants and objectors confidence that the process is conducted in an entirely appropriate manner?
	If there are to be numerous local inquiries, we will need a body of people who have the necessary commitment and expertise to decide those matters. When statutory commons associations are set up, the Bill provides that, if there is an objection, there should be a local inquiry. My noble Friends in the other place suggested the creation of commons inspectors for that purpose. It seems that there will be considerable work for them to do.
	There is no reference in the Bill to the huge contribution that commons could make to food production. Last week, the Government's chief scientific adviser, David King, warned that an increase of 3 C in global temperature could mean that 400 million would go hungry. The present Government have been more cavalier in their disregard for food security than almost any British Government for the past 100 years. In the 1920s and 1930s, Governments believed that we could raid the global larder, so to speak, and buy food from wherever we wanted to satisfy our needs. That was confounded by the second world war and the destruction of shipping.
	Town and village greens were dug up and turned into allotments in the Dig for Victory campaigns, and the commons were ploughed, especially in our area, where Llandefalle common and Hay Bluff were ploughed up to provide potatoes and corn for the country. In an emergency, that might have to happen again. Such activities took place under emergency powers during the war, and perhaps the Bill should provide for such a possibility in future.
	We welcome the opportunity to rectify some mistakes that were made under the previous registration system, but we are concerned about the provisions for common land to be exchangedfor instance, when it is compulsorily purchased for road building. The land for which it is exchanged should be contiguous with the original common. Commoners often complain that the land for which it is exchanged is so remote from the existing common or is divided from the common by a fenced main road that it is of little use to the commoners for stock grazing.
	The most important aspect of the Bill is the powers given to national authorities to set up statutory commons associations. We welcome that, because in many cases commons have been unable to make use of grants through environmental schemes, as it has not been possible to get the agreement of every commoner on that common. However, the Bill is unclear about who might initiate the formation of a statutory commons association. I presume that it could be the people with common rights, local authorities, national authorities or organisations with interests in conservation. Will the Minister state whom he believes will initiate the process? Given commoners' sensitivity, the method of electing commoners' representatives to the associations' management boards could be a difficult matter.
	The Bill mentions elections. Would inactive graziers have the same rights as active graziers? If a dominant tenement was owned by a sole trader, would that constitute one vote? If it was owned by a partnership, would that constitute two votes? If one person had more than one dominant tenement on a common, would there be a vote for each dominant tenement? Would the size of the vote vary with that of the registration? For example, would someone who was registered for 100 sheep have fewer votes than someone who was registered for 5,000? The Minister would be well advised to resolve the matter before the Bill becomes law because establishing statutory commons associations could flounder on it.
	If statutory commons associations have the power to order the management of commons, and it meant a reduction of commoners' rights in order to comply with a specific environmental scheme, that might be all right for commoners who agreed with entry into the scheme, but if an individual commoner did not agree, what would be the effect on his human rights of the reduction of his grazing rights without his agreement? The Bill does not mention that human rights aspect. Will the Minister comment on that?
	We welcome the protection of village and town greens and commons. The repeal of the Law of Property Act 1925 is a good step forward. However, several commoners complain to me that planning authorities give planning permission for developments on commons without informing the applicants that they should have applied under the 1925 legislation. When planning authorities receive planning applications for a common, they should be required to inform the national authority, or possibly to put a condition precedent on the planning permission, if it is issued, requiring the applicant to make the proper application to the national authority. If the planning permission is granted, it could mean injustice for those who value the common or the green. It would be much better if the Bill included a process to ensure that applicants made a proper approach to the national authority.
	I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on requiring a person who is responsible for illegal developments on commons simply to take down or remove the development is an insufficient punishment. People should be deterred from taking illegal action by some sort of penalty, if appropriate. I bow to the legal knowledge of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on that. The point has been made to me on several occasions.
	The Bill is welcome but it has taken a long time to arrive. The 1965 Act gave us registration and we were told that the second tranche would quickly follow. It is 35 years late, but welcome, although much damage has been done.

Bill Wiggin: Forty-one years.

Roger Williams: I allowed six years to achieve the registrationI believed that that was a reasonable time. However, thirty-five years later, we have no way of ensuring that commons are managed properly. Much of the damage to the sites of special scientific interest has been done in that time.
	Although we support the Bill, we shall make suggestions in Committee about ways in which it can be improved so that commoners can be engaged more fully and have the confidence that their interests will be taken into account and that the commons that they have loved and on which they have worked for so long will not be taken over by somebody with a different vision from theirs. In most casesI would say 90 per cent.the commoners' interests encompass not only agriculture but conservation. We want to encourage sensible commoners who are committed to that work to have the opportunity to do it.

Paul Truswell: I appreciate that Second Reading debates are supposed to take a panoramic view of proposed legislation, and I shall therefore begin by saying that I welcome all the Bill's provisions.
	However, I make no apology for now becoming more specific and parochial. I want to examine whether the Bill will assist with town green applications that have already been submitted, as well as those to be made in future. I shall concentrate on an application for an area called Yeadon Banks in my constituency. If applications such as the Yeadon Banks proposal for registration are successful, they will benefit from the range of measures in the Bill.
	Yeadon Banks comprises three fields in the town of Yeadon in my constituency. Leeds city council owns two and the other is in private ownership. Local people greatly value the area, for the reasons that other hon. Members have cited when considering commons. Until the 1990s the whole of Yeadon Banks was in the green belt. Then came the Conservative Government's lengthy, byzantine and expensive unitary development plan process. There was no problem with the two city council-owned fields remaining in the green belt. However, at the public inquiry into the unitary development plan, the owners of the private field successfully appealed against their field remaining in the green belt. It therefore became a protected area of search. That meant that the field would be reconsidered for possible housing development when the UDP came up for review.
	The review took place from the end of 2004 to early 2005. The owners of the field were unsuccessful in their appeal to have the land designated for housing, so it remained a protected area of search. Its future is therefore uncertain. The people of Yeadon want to retain that cherished area of green space. The idea that it should be buried under bricks and mortar for the simple pursuit of profit by developers is repugnant to them. Is it such a bad thing for communities, such as Yeadon in my constituency, to attempt to use the registration process to protect a valuable green jewel from the developers' bulldozers? That is the background to the application.
	After the original removal of the land from the green belt, local residents and I explored the possibility of getting the whole of Yeadon Banksall three fieldsdesignated as a town green. It appeared to fulfil the criteria. It had been used for generationsindeed, throughout living memoryfor various relevant recreational purposes. No one can remember any Keep Out signs or other restrictions on public access. No one had been challenged or given express permission to use the area. Local people had used it, to all intents and purposes, as of right, without force, without secrecy and without permissionto cite the legal jargon.
	I have worked closely with local residents on this issue, and following several well-attended public meetings we formed a community group called Keep Yeadon Banks Greenor KEYBAG, as it came to be known. With assistance from the Open Spaces Society, and in particular its esteemed local legal adviser, Jerry Pearlman, we began to put together an application for designation.
	At this point, I must pay tribute to the chair of KEYBAG, Doug Jones. He has been tireless in his work, and played a huge role in collecting statements of evidence from residents, drawing up maps and filling in application forms. He has done all this while caring for his seriously ill wife and suffering from a protracted period of ill health himself. He is truly a local hero. This is relevant not because I want to eulogise Doug, but because I want to touch on some of the points that have already been raised in the debate. The work involved in the application has fallen on a few volunteers, and it is much more time-consuming than anyone might assume, especially if significant numbers of statements of evidence need to be collected in order to put forward the most cogent possible application for designation.
	There are immense legal complexities involved. They are not quite beyond the lay person, but they are incredibly arcane and we have needed time and assistance to get to grips with them. For that reason, among others, I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reject the advice of those who seek to restrict the limits relating to land being closed off to the community and applications being submitted. That is the other side of the coin to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).
	Eventually, in July 2004, Doug and I had the pleasure of presenting our application to the council. We had no illusions about the difficulties involved. We realised that many applications fail, for any number of reasons. However, we did not expect our application to run aground as a result of the so-called Trap Grounds Appeal Court judgment of February 2005. That judgment effectively gives landowners an absolute block on applications for town greens. All they have to do is erect fences and Keep Out signs between the date of the application being submitted and the day on which the case is heard, as has been done on Yeadon Banks and in many other locations throughout the country. Under the Trap Grounds judgment, terminating access in that way before an application is heard automatically defeats it. That is obviously nonsense, and is clearly completely contrary to the intention of the Commons Registration Act 1965.
	The community was devastated by that action by the landowners. I would not go so far as to say that the residents of Yeadon took to the streets, but many were moved to demonstrate in palpable terms what they thought of the landowners, the fences and the Keep Out signs. It felt a bit like the local team getting to the cup final, only to turn up at the ground and find that the gates had been locked and that someone had put up Keep Out signs and threatened that if the players insisted on playing the game, victory would be awarded to the other side. This is why clause 15 is so welcome to so many communities throughout the country, not just to those living in the vicinity of Yeadon Banks. It will not make applications any stronger, but it will give applicants something approaching a level playing field, and the ability to have the evidence properly weighed.
	I am delighted that the Government have taken this initiative. They could have waited for the outcome of the appeal to the Lords on the Trap Grounds case that was heard at the end of last month. They could also have considered making regulations under the existing legislation. However, they have seized the issue and recognised the legal loopholethe black hole, as I would call itand are tackling the matter with primary legislation that I hope will restore the status quo.
	I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on individual applications, for a whole host of reasons. My purpose is simply to flag up the issue of applications that were left in limbo by the Trap Grounds judgment, including that involving Yeadon Banks. There are a number of scenarios for applications in that state of limbo. Rather than rehearsing them now, as my hon. Friend has not had an adequate opportunity to seek advice that would enable him to respond in a considered way, I should like to meet him and his officials at the earliest opportunity to discuss them. I would welcome a commitment from him that he is prepared to do that.

Peter Atkinson: I should like to say to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) that one of the problems involved in using the town green method of trying to obstruct or prevent a development on a particular site is that more and more landowners who have allowed a certain amount of informal use of a piece of waste land will be far more reluctant to do so. One of the reasons why we have a planning process is precisely to deal with such situations. I appreciate that he has a problem in his constituencywe all have problems from time to timebut he should be very careful about encouraging people to use the town green clause, as it were, as a way of blocking a planning development. In the north, such developments often involve much-needed social housing.

Paul Truswell: The hon. Gentleman uses loaded words such as obstruct, but the people of Yeadon Banks and their counterparts up and down the country would not recognise that concept. They would use the word protect, because they are trying to protect a facility, an open space, that people have been using for generations.

Peter Atkinson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt his constituents will read about his remarks in their local paper with great interest.
	The Bill has proceeded through the other place, including its Committee stage there, to this House with a great deal of consensus. The Minister has been very willing to listen to all our remarks as he deals with this nightmarishly complex piece of legislation. It is sad, therefore, that having gone through all this, we are now faced with an outrageous programme motion. We know perfectly well that some amendments will need to be tabled in Committee. How on earth can the Committee deal with these complex matters by Thursday 27 April? That is an outrageous abuse of the programming system.
	Before the programming system was introduced, the Opposition had the weapon of delay to wring concessions from the Government. This Bill would have provided a wonderful opportunity to prolong debate to win a number of concessions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who is sitting on our Front Bench, was, in his day, a great master of speaking long and hard on certain issues in order to get concessions out of the Government. Given the provisions of the Bill, we could have spent at least an hour on turbary, a further hour on estovers and possibly even more on couchancyalthough I am not sure whether my Norman French pronunciation is quite correct there. The Bill would have provided wonderful opportunities for delay, as well as for those who are interested in the arcane areas of common land law.

Elfyn Llwyd: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman has left out rights of pescary.

Peter Atkinson: That was remiss of me. That subject could also have taken up a fair amount of time in Committee. These are much-loved common rights that date back to the Norman conquest.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned the first commons Act, which was passed in the reign of Edward I in 1285. That must be one of the oldest Acts of Parliament remaining on the statute book, and if this Bill passes into law it will abolish it, so I want to pay a passing tribute to that old piece of legislation. My hon. Friend was right to say that the problems in 1285 were very similar to those that exist today, with which the Bill is trying to deal. The Act of 1285 says that there was concern among those who owned the common land and put up hedges or dug ditches that
	some by Night, or at another Season, when they suppose not to be espied, do overthrow the Hedge or Dyke.
	In those days, too, landowners were worried about vandalism to their property, and the Act was introduced, in part, to deal with that.
	I hope that the Bill will be more successful than the previous legislation on these matters. There is no doubt that some of the unintended consequences that have flowed from previous legislationnot least the Law of Property Act 1922, which abolished the old feudal right of copyholdare the reason why we are debating this Bill tonight. That was an important right, because it meant that all those with common rights over a piece of ground were listed in the manorial roll. They also had a copy of that manorial roll, which enabled people to know exactly who was entitled to what common rights. That was abolished, and considerable doubt has existed ever since about who owns particular rights in relation to particular commons.
	As we have heard, the 1965 Act left a lot of doubt about the ownership of commons and common rights, and the amount of grazing rights that various commoners had. As a result of the 1965 Act, many rights that were unclear and had been more or less lost in the mists of time were hopelessly exaggerated, and many more farmers than were entitled to do so claimed the right to graze sheep on a piece of land. That is reflected now in the single farm payment, which is based on historic rights. If those historic rights were based on the wrong figures, either accidentally or deliberately, other farmers on the common might not get the payment to which they were entitled, and the money might go to another farmer who might not be entitled to it.
	Despite what I have said, I welcome the Bill, as it will make a difference and clear up several anomalies, not least in my constituency. In one case in my constituency, somebody's drive was apparently listed as common land a number of years ago. In another, somebody had bought an existing house that apparently, unknown to anybody, was built on common landat the time of the registration in 1965, no one noticed that so there was no appeal against it. Of course there was no way in which the couple living in that house could unlock themselves from the situation. I hope that the Bill will at least resolve that problem.
	There is no doubt that there are many problems with commons. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, the nature of those problems depends on where one comes from. In commons in the south of England, under-grazing has often been the problem. Having lived for many years in East Anglia, I know that some of its commons have become completely overgrown because nobody there grazes sheep any more, or cuts bracken for bedding. Commons in the north, however, such as some of the big north Pennines commons in my constituency, have been over-grazed. If one looks at the landscape, one sees that where there is a moor that is managed for grouse, a fence, and then a moor that is not managed for grouse, there is purple heather on one side of the fence and white grass on the other. That is a stark example of how over-grazing can cause deterioration in management. I do not know whether that will continue. We have not yet seen the full effects of the single farm payment, but now that subsidies are not production-driven, there seems to be a tendency towards under-grazing on some upland commons. People will take cattle off those upland commons, and grazing cattle and sheep is important in maintaining proper biodiversity.
	The Minister should also address the management of commons in any amendments about erecting and taking down fences. One of the difficulties is that when many flocks were slaughtered during the foot and mouth epidemic in my constituency and other areas in the north, hefted flocks were destroyedflocks that have lived on a particular piece of ground for generations. That ground has been repopulated with new sheep, which do not have the tradition of hefting. Those sheep wander all over the place.
	For example, on Allendale common, one of the biggest commons in my constituency of well over 20 square miles, the commonersor stintholders, as they are calledput up a 3 km fence to manage the movement of sheep better, because some individual sheep were travelling 20 or 30 miles from where they should have been. Farmers were driving up and down collecting odd sheep that had turned up as far away as Weardale over the border into Durham. They have now been told to take the fence down, as they did not have the correct permission to erect it on common land. That is an example of how unsympathetic officialdom can make life difficult for commoners.
	On the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) about access, the fact that there is a fence does not mean that there is not access. It simply means that people must go through a gate or climb over a stile. In view of the changing circumstances of management, fences should be allowed without the long protracted process of consent, which can cause considerable expense and waste a great deal of time. A more sympathetic form of management would make an important contribution.
	In the handling of severance of common rights and the reallocation of rights, commons associations should have greater flexibility than the Bill allows them. In different scenarios on different commons, severance of rights can be important, but reallocation of rights should not necessarily be on the pro rata basis stipulated in the Bill. No doubt the Minister has read the explanatory memorandum on the subject.

Jim Knight: indicated assent.

Peter Atkinson: Of course he has. The official who wrote the explanatory memorandum deserves credit, as it is a clear and interesting document. It gives an example of a piece of one farm being sold off for housing developmentnot on common land but where the owners had rights to graze on common landwhich could have ended up, had the rights been halved, with one farmer having 50 per cent. of the grazing rights, and 50 individual house plots having the grazing right of, say, one sheep each. Of course those householders will never exercise that right, which will remove sheep from the area. If the commons association could intervene, it could award the 50 grazing units given to new householders to the farmer or other farmers who had access to the common, so that the grazing regime could be properly maintained.
	When I have inquired in the past what the balance should be between commoners, stintholders, farmers or other interests on the commons association, I have been told, as the Minister of State said earlier, that he had no scenario in mind for who should be in the majority. One can imagine a conflict between the owner of a grouse moor, the leaseholder of the shooting rights and those interested in nature conservation. Those issues can be difficult, and it is important that commons associations know exactly where the priorities lie. The composition of commons associations is a recipe for considerable conflict of interest.
	I want to reinforce the concerns expressed by the National Trust, because an important point of principle arises. I understand that many commons are subject to different and various Acts of Parliament, and that we need to be able to change those without the scrutiny of the House. However, the National Trust owns a huge amount of common landabout 10 per cent. of the total in England and Walesand for the National Trust Act 1971 to be amended by regulation in relation to commons associations is wrong. The National Trust Act should not be changed without proper scrutiny by the House.
	I am sad to end on the sour note that there will not be proper time to debate the Bill in Committee. Apart from that, however, I welcome the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening to representations previously made to him.

David Drew: I am delighted to take part in the debate on Second Reading. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on bringing a slight note of disagreement to the proceedings. So far, there has been a rather mushy compromise, with a level of consensus that perhaps this place does well to achieve on occasions. I want to take a slightly more robust approach to the defence of our commons, which matter to me.
	I am in the fortuitous position of having a large number of commons in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned one of them in his opening remarksMinchinhampton, about which he spoke in glowing terms. He referred to biodiversity and people coming from Gloucester and Stroud to visit it. I thought that we would hear about the warm beer and the maids riding to church, so glowing were his comments.
	Commons and common land are not exempt from controversy, however. I think that it behoves those of us who look at history to bear in mind the basis on which land has been allotted, and also the fact that, for what I consider to be dishonourable reasons, there has been an attempt to brush it under the carpet rather than defending it. It is deeply ironic that the other place spent five days in a Grand Committee and two days on Second Reading, Report and Third Readingstages that we will no doubt handle as wellgiven that the predecessors of those peers stole common land from people. It is wonderful that the other place can spend all that time on detailed consideration, but some of us feel that the Commons, which contains the representatives of the commoners, is the place that should uphold the right of every person to have access to the land and use it purposefully.

David Taylor: rose

David Drew: I am sure that my hon. Friend has something enthusiastic to say.

David Taylor: Is it not somewhat ironic that those peers of bygone times have been replaced by peers of modern times who, instead of stealing land from the people, steal state schools from the people for a pittance of 2 million?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might want to rethink what he has just said.

David Drew: I will not go down that path, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am sure it would be interesting. I will, however, take my hon. Friend back to the age of the Diggers and the Levellers. The Diggers in particular fought to maintain common land. In those days, in the mid-17th century, three fifths of land was common land; now the proportion is 3 per cent. The remaining land has gone somewhere. In fact, it has gone into private ownershipand 80 per cent. of the 3 per cent. is now privately owned. We are hardly talking about the legacy that many of us would like to see, involving rights of access and use. The maintaining and enhancing of democratic accountability has not been a great success story.

Roger Williams: Although I supported the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, I saw no evidence that access to common land had ever been denied. I understood that people had de facto access, even if they did not have legal access. I tried to explain to farmers that people would not get off their sofas and stop watching television just to walk on common land because they had been given the legal right to do so.

David Drew: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am merely saying that there should be more common land, because by right that land is common. We have found numerous ways of taking it away from people in the past. I see the Bill as an opportunity to rebalance the way in which we can grant not just access but rights in perpetuity, so that people can use the land meaningfully.
	I will not dwell on history for too long, but those who do not wish to consider the mid-17th century should refer to the late 19th century. Those of us who know a bit about rural socialism will be aware that the Clarion group encouraged people to cycle out of the urban centres. People would often go to the commons, because the land was available to them. More recently, there was the great Kinder Scout trespass. That was all about what I would like to see: not a division between town and countryside, but the nexus that really exists. As many earlier generations were driven from the countryside, people want to revisit it now. They want to know that they have rights to do that, and that those rights are enshrined in statute. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) spoke of the voluntary aspectthe way in which we British tend to compromise and to be tolerant, but tolerance goes only so far on occasion. We see dreadful legal disputes over who owns what, and who has the right of access.
	The Bill provides valuable opportunities for us to return to some of the issues that I have raised. I am fortunate in that my constituency contains not just Minchinhampton common, but Selsley, Edge, Amberley, Painswick and Stinchcombe commons. It used to contain a common called Eastcombe, but that is now a major housing estate. I met a wonderful lady, whose name escapes me for the moment, who spent many years investigating what had happened to that common. The developers continued to develop it without giving a second thought to the nature of the land, and there was no recourse for anyone else. Those who think that such land is sacrosanct and cannot be taken away are somewhat naive.
	In general this is a good Bill, but I want to draw attention to some of the dividing lines. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and by the Minister, this is the third part of the tripod. We had the legs in the form of the CROW Act and the seat in the form of the NERC Bill. This Bill bolts the tripod together: without statutory underpinning of the way in which commons, and village greens in particular, are allowed to operate, the whole system is meaningless.
	It is welcome that the new organisation, Natural England, will undertake many of the detailed responsibilities. I hope that it will indeed be a new organisation, rather than a rebadged version of English Nature, and that it will do genuinely interesting things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood pointed out, the requirements for biodiversity and protection of SSSIs are absolute commitments made by the Government. If the Government do not meet those commitments, the Opposition or anyone else will have every right to beat the Government. They have set themselves onerous tasks, but they must perform those tasks.
	It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) is not present today, because he has done sterling work. At the time of the NERC Bill, he raised the question of easements. It just happens that for some years Minchinhampton has been a source of great disagreement between those who, for what they would term a long period, have had vehicular access to the common and across it, and the National Trust, which is responsible for management of the common. I hope that the NERC Bill has lain to rest the dreadful issue of easements. It is a dreadful issue because I wish I understood it. It is very complicated, and whenever people explain it to me it seems to change and become even more complicated and confrontational. Nevertheless, I hope that it has been laid to rest. I hope that it is clear that age-old rights will be maintained, and will not be removed for apparently unfair, money-raising reasons.
	As for the question of maintenance, we could talk about over-grazing and under-grazing, but I am more interested in how we can make common land fit for purpose. Everyone accepts that common land must be managed: it does not manage itself, which is why the National Trust has taken responsibility for many commons. It has become the managing agent, although there are controversial issues relating to the curtailment of some of its responsibilities in the Bill. I should like maintenance and management to be appropriate to the time in which we live. As some legislation demonstrates, some people wish further to denude common ownership by putting all land into some form of private ownership. I should like to see an opening up, with responsibility given to representative bodies in areas where commons existusually parish and town councils.
	I link that directly to the question of the commons associations. Whether we call the bodies commons associations or commons councils, I want them to be genuinely democratic, and that will be one of the tests for the Government. I want those who are responsible for commons to have a voice in the way in which their management is taken forward. That will not be easy because we must consider not only agricultural interests, but golf clubs, cricket clubs and hand gliding clubs, all of which use common land in my area alone. Such clubs might have a view, so they might wish to have a voice. The way in which they are incorporated in the process will be a test. Given that the Minister said that the arrangements would be ad hoc, we will have to work that out. Perhaps there will be new localism in action, but someone will have to give the matter serious thought.
	I would not want to exclude in any way the political voice of democratically elected representatives. Those people are important because they can have an overview and examine the way in which things should be done in a wide sphere, unlike people with a self-interest, or who wish to pursue a specific interest.

David Taylor: Is it not possible that trying to widen the scope of those whose views must be sought might run directly contrary to the underpinning aspiration of part 3 of streamlining the consent system on works and fencing? Many landowning conservation organisations such as the Woodland Trust have entirely admirable objectives that should be supported, but have been frustrated time and again when trying to carry out work that is entirely consistent with the Government's aims on the sustainable management of common areas. Would not those organisations find that their work was impeded if the democratic group to which my hon. Friend refers was widened?

David Drew: I agree. That is why we need a properly democratically accountable body that can look out for such interests. The changing nature of common land throughout history has not yet been brought out in the debate. Some such land could be reforested, so it is important that those who know something about that form part of a decision-making process to protect an area. My hon. Friend's point is entirely correct and laudable and I hope that the Minister will respond to it in due course.
	Given that we are talking about the new agriculture and will, perhaps, re-extensify some parts of our agricultural land because we do not need the same intensity, we must understand the opportunities that can be created for the use of common land. I hope that that will be examined seriously when considering the single farm payment. We could, dare I say, see action through real joined-up thinking and joined-up government. We could consider not just the use of the land, but who uses it. A community agriculture group in my constituency wishes to develop, on a semi-voluntary basis, new forms of organic agriculture. It is always looking for land to take on, so why should it be excluded from accessing such land that could be made available? The Government should make smart moves to be inclusive and examine the way in which common land is made available to those who can use it purposefully. Those people would be accountable and could introduce new forms of agriculture and use the grant system in the most beneficial way. If common land is to be cultivated, I hope that we can think creatively about using it in such a way. I accept that we wish to protect many parts of common land and use them in a way that is as minimalist as possible, but sometimes we will want to maximise the use of land for agriculture and employment.
	I hope that I speak for others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, when I tell the Minister that I hope that in the time that we will have in Committee, which will not be great, we will be able to come up with an amendment that sets out a proactive approach on village greens. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said, and the Bill would be the right place for such a provision, so I hope that the Minister will think about the proposal positively. The existing process is long-winded, negative and entirely against communities that wish not only to find a piece of land, but genuinely to protect land that should be a village greenland that is a village green in all but name and statute. Why can we not use the Bill as a way to consolidate the process? We do not want a rash of new applications, but the matter is important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said when he spoke lyrically about his area, there is a danger that people will take the opportunity to shut down the right and proper use of such land.
	I hope that we will examine carefully several of the proposals made by the Open Spaces Society, which has altruistically done more than anyone to defend open land that is for common use. Several of the society's suggestions are controversial, but it is generally supportive of the Government's approach and says that that is long overdue. I hope that we will look at the suggestions purposefully and make the Bill a measure of which we can all feel a bit proud, even if some of us think that it is a bit late in coming and could have been even more radical.

Philip Dunne: I remind the House of my declaration of interests. I am a partner in a farming business that holds modest ownership rights, and slightly more substantial grazing rights, over common land. That means that I have some knowledge of which I speak.
	I am pleased that there has been such consensus across the House, notwithstanding the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The debate is important because common land raises considerable concerns among many of our constituents who have historical rights that go back many generations. In the county of Shropshire, which I represent in part, there are more than 5,000 hectares of common land in 86 registered commons. The county council that monitors the commons anticipates that there is a substantially larger amount of unregistered land and is trying to pull together various interests. The Bill is designed to put right several of the deficiencies of the Commons Registration Act 1965.
	I am extremely relieved that the Minister has decided that the most appropriate registration body is the local authority, rather than his Department. I say that for several reasons, not least of which is the performance of the Rural Payments Agency, which his Department supervises, on the mapping and registration of agricultural land throughout the country. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it has some relevance to the debate, I will cite a letter that I received from the agency shortly before the recesson 28 March. The letter was about the form that I was invited to complete for my 2006 single farm payment. It said:
	Your application form has been pre-populated with the number of entitlements that were notified to you on your un-validated entitlements statement.
	It led me to think that there might be some data included on the form, but it was not until I got to the eighth page of zero information that I reached part D, which was on common land grazing rights. I was pleased to see that there was notification on the form that I was entitled to graze 43.3 cattle and 720 sheep on common land. As it happens, I cannot reconcile those figures with any of mine, which shows that the entire form is gobbledegook. It is a great relief that Shropshire county council will be responsible in future.
	I have spoken to the registration officer, who has some concerns about taking on that onerous task, not least because of the resources that will be required to manage common landin particular, the cost of installing digital mapping. I share his concerns about the potential for confusion and conflict between the Rural Payments Agency and the common land registrar in each local authority. I hope that they will be able to match up the two different systems. I urge the Minister to address in Committee how that will be done in practice, because few MPs and even fewer people outside the House have much confidence in the Government's management of IT projects.
	I was relieved that the Minister confirmed that funding would be made available to the registration authorities. I hope that it will be sufficient to cope with the extra burden.
	I wish to address three aspects of the Bill, which have been touched on already today. Concerns have been expressed about the definition of village greens and open spaces that is set out in clause 15. Several hon. Members have referred to the Trap Grounds case that is going through the other placethe decision is awaitedand I am pleased that the Bill will provide clarity for all those concerned to establish ownership of village greens. In common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome that.
	However, some concerns arise from the Government's changing views on the matter and I take slight issue with the comment made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the potentially conflicting rights of those seeking to obstruct or gain access to land, as opposed to those who have ownership rights over the land. The issue has been addressed throughout the long period of debate over common lands and I hope that the Government will consider introducing in Committee similar protections for those who have ownership rights, as laid out in section 31 of the Highways Act 1980.
	There would be a precedent for such a move. In the discussions that took place during the public consultation in February 2000, Ministers recognised that such protection for landowners' interests would be appropriate. In particular, the Common Land Policy Statement 2002, issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stated, in relation to future legislation:
	There would, however, be a similar provision to that under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 concerning rights of way, so that a land owner could give notice that it is not his or her intention that the land should become a permanent town or village green.
	That has been referred to in the other place in debates on the Bill over the past year. The concern is that by providing a mere notice in the relevant place, it could give rise to vexatious or frustrating action on the part of those who have ownership rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) effectively countered that argument by making the point that it could also prevent any new land from being opened up for public access, for fear that over time it would be turned into a formal village green, with all the implications that that would have for the landowners.
	I have a particular, slightly unusual case in my constituency, which relates to land owned by a charitable trust set up by the Church. The land is known as Glebe land and it is in the village of Clun. It has been owned by the Church for centuries and people in the village have had full public access to it on a permissive basis for much of that time. However, it is now potentially subject to sale, and there is considerable scope for conflict between the public who use the land and the Church. Far be it from me to get in the middle of that battle, but the issue appears incapable of resolution other than through the result of the Trap Grounds case or if the Bill included a similar provision to section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, as I have just mentioned. I ask the Minister to consider that proposal in Committee. The Church has had many lands confiscated over many centuries, since Henry VIII started the process, and this is not the right time to deny its property rights.
	Clause 27 addresses the role of commons associations and in particular their establishments. I have concerns that the drafting of clause 27(4) means that the appropriate national authority will have to be satisfied that substantial support exists for the making of an order for a commons association. I have examples in my constituency of existing commons associations that have a management agreement with English Nature. I met the Stiperstones Commoners Association last week, which looks after an area of nearly 1,000 acres, 700 of which are registered and 300 are unregistered. It has a management agreement with English Nature, under which it is essentially told what to do. The association has very little negotiating right on behalf of its three commons rights holders, who are small farmers in their own right. My concern is that if the appropriate national authority determines that an organisation should be set up with a dominant state entity as a party to it, that entity may call the shots, which may not necessarily be right. How will the national authority determine substantial support when there is a limited pool of existing rights holders? Will it be opened up to everybody who lives in the area surrounding the common? People will want to retain access rights to travel across the common, but they may not wish to exercise grazing rights.
	Another example is the Long Mynd, a well known landmark in my constituency. I am told by English Nature that shortly after the 1965 Act, more than 26,000 people registered rights on that common, which comprises some 2,000 hectares. That was clearly a massive exaggeration of rights and I hope that the Bill will put that right.
	There is no easy answer to these issues. The examples are so diverse, even in an area as similar as within a few miles of Shropshire hills.

David Drew: My problem is the distinction between grazing rights, whose holders will presumably be active members of whatever organisation manages the common, and more distant rights, such as that of access. The difficulty is achieving the balance between the two. For example, those holding grazing rights are seriously under-represented and they do not seem to wish to come forward. How can we resolve that?

Philip Dunne: It is very difficult to say what farming activity should take place in areas where it is no longer economically viable. It may be attractive to have an entity such as English Nature enter into management agreements in areas such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In the Stiperstones area, the graziers used to get what I would call proper payment from DEFRA's predecessor, the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the payment that they receive now is about to make grazing in the area uneconomic, even though it is part of environmental support and so deserves reward.
	My final point has to do with clause 31 and the management of common land, which I am not convinced is always best determined by a bureaucratic entity. Commoners in the Stiperstones area tell me that the land management practised by English Nature means that opportunities for grazing have fallen significantly over recent years, with the result that the land can no longer support the number of animals for which rights have existed for many decades. In part, that is a result of the management agreement entered into by English Nature, which does not consider grazing to be a priority. It has a different objective, and wants to create environmental attractions for walkers and those who pursue other leisure activities.
	That gives rise to a conflict: whose rights should prevail? My fear is that small graziers, whose voice is relatively small, will be steamrollered by the bureaucrats. I hope that the registration process and the relevant management agreements will allow appeals to be mounted. So far, however, I have seen no evidence that such mechanisms will be included.
	In conclusion, our agricultural sector, and the livestock industry in particular, faces difficult times. Our common lands cover large areas of some constituencies, and we must not set up a management system that weakens the possibility of a viable livestock industry in those areas. Any such system should encourage that industry.

Madeleine Moon: As many speakers have said, this Bill is a historic piece of legislation, linking us with the Norman conquest of Britain and the manorial system. Village greens and commons are part of our historical and natural heritage, and are valued for reasons of agriculture, recreation, landscape and nature conservation.
	There is a long history in this House of legislation relating to commons and village greens, but the Bill shows what happens when we fail to take account of the effect that measures can have once enacted. We need it to rectify the failures of the Commons Registration Act 1965, but we must ensure that any failures in this Bill do not take so long to put right.
	The Bill's provenance is worth setting out in detail. An interdepartmental working group made recommendations in 1977 and the common land forum of 1984 reported in 1986. A consultation on the better management of common land in England and Wales led to the 2000 rural White Paper and the common land policy group set up by DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly in 2002 published a statement in 2003. All of that was needed to rectify failures in the 1965 Act.
	Many speakers have identified those failures and the need to ensure that the Bill drives forward to achieving the Government's target of having 95 per cent. of SSSIs in England in a favourable condition by 2010. Common land covers 4 per cent. of land in England and 55 per cent. of commons are registered as SSSIs, but only half those sites meet their public service agreement targets.
	In Wales, between 8 and 9 per cent. of land is common land: 45 per cent. of that total comes under the SSSI designation, but only 16 per cent. of those sites have management agreements. I questioned the Countryside Council for Wales and was told that the targets in the Wales environment strategy action plan to be released in May will be lower than their equivalents in England. Where 95 per cent. of SSSIs in England are set to be in a favourable condition by 2010, the target in Wales is to have 95 per cent. of SSSIs in favourable condition or in unfavourable recovery by that date.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I suggest an answer to that conundrum? Much land in England has fallen out of agricultural use, but the CAP system meant that, in Wales, an impetus was given to increasing stocking. That is the reason behind the problem that the hon. Lady has described.

Madeleine Moon: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I remain concerned that, in Wales, the target is to have 100 per cent. of SSSIs in favourable condition only by 2026. The landscape of Wales is as important and valuable for biodiversity as England's. I do not want England to be ahead of Wales in the protection of anything, but especially not our national heritage. I am sure that he agrees with that. I hope that the relevant Ministers, in Wales and in England, will take part in close consultations and work side by side to protect our natural heritage. Biodiversity targets should apply across the UK and we must ensure that they are met.
	I want to focus on a common in my constituency because it highlights the critical importance of commons in meeting biodiversity targets. Kenfig down was given to the local burgesses by Thomas le Dispenser in 1397, in compensation for land lost to sand encroachment. In the 1920s, Colonel H. Morrey Salmon, an amateur naturalist, established the Kenfig sand dunes as a wildlife resource of outstanding significance for its birds and plants. The rare fen orchid was especially important in that context.
	Kenfig appeared in a list of 19 proposed British nature reserves that was produced in 1943. That shows that, even in the depths of war, we were planning for the future of nature reserves. In 1947, it was recommended that 1,500 acres should form a national nature reserve. Sadly, the Margam steel works was expanded soon afterwards and the population of two local villages, Pyle and Cornelli, grew. The increasing pressure from those communities meant that Kenfig did not become a nature reserve.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about the loss of common land. Kenfig did not get the protection that NNR status would have conferred, and the consequences were dire. In the 1950s, a pipeline was laid across the sand dunes to provide an emergency water supply from its 70-acre freshwater poolthe largest natural pool in Walesfor the Margam steel works. A large railway yard was built in the north-east of the site, and a road was built behind the dunes to enable the deep port at Port Talbot to be established.
	With the spread of tourism, there were suggestions that the whole of the dunes would be flattened for a holiday village. It was, even then, the last extensive remaining part of the sand dune system that had previously stretched from the Ogmore river to the end of Gower. It was the only area not covered by housing, industrial sites or caravan parks and the Margam estate claimed the land. That led to an extensive court case between the trustees, who held the commoners' rights, and the estate. It was not settled until 1971. Fortunately, the settlement went in favour of the commoners and not the Margam estate. That enabled Colonel Salmon, supported by county Councillor Ted Davies, to fight for Kenfig to become a local nature reserve, which it did in 1978. It made it to national reserve status in 1989 and was designated a European site for nature conservation in 1995.It is worth noting that, since the establishment of the reserve, the water pipe has been removed and the haul road scarified, promoting the creation of a whole new habitat. Generations of people will have cause to thank Colonel Salmon and Councillor Davies.
	Let me give an example of the importance that just one common in Wales has to biodiversity and hitting our important targets. Kenfig alone has 525 species of plant, 19 species of fern, 69 species of fungi, 509 species of moth, 24 species of butterfly, 16 species of dragon and damsel flies, six species of leech, 54 species of snail, 195 species of beetle, 950 species of flyI was surprised to discover that113 species of spider, and 77 species of bees and wasps. Some 250 species of birds visit the site.
	Kenfig is one of 12 commons protected in Wales by local authorities, but it is the only nature reserve and European site of nature conservation funded and protected by a local authority. My local authority also manages Locks common, which is now a local nature reserve, on behalf of its landowner, and the Green. Both are areas of access and public open space and commons stretching along the sea front, and they are much valued by visitors and residents. I am concerned that small, new unitary authorities will not have the capacity to take on such tasks and responsibilities.
	A recent study of just six SSSIs in Wales, carried out by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, found that only one was in a favourable condition. Problems were caused, as several speakers have said, by both undergrazing and overgrazing. Lack of fencing, lack of graziers, off-road 4x4s and motorbikes, vandalism, arson and conflicts of interest between graziers, owners and commoners were common. Almost all common land is semi-natural habitat and should be delivering on biodiversity targets if the habitat is in a favourable condition, but that requires funding and investment.
	Some issues will be addressed by the Bill, particularly through the ability to form commons associations with powers to regulate grazing and some other agricultural activities and to access agri-environment schemes. The capacity for the Countryside Council for Wales and for Natural England to acquire severed rights of grazing by voluntary sale will assist in moving towards the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss.
	I would welcome some clarification of how the Minister sees the Bill operating. Areas currently have management agreements between local authorities and commoners, involving voluntary organisations such as the excellent Glamorgan wildlife trust, in my constituency, which manages a number of commons across south Wales in partnership with commoners and landowners. How will they relate to the new commoners associations? Will their current terms of reference come into play? Or if we are to have regionally based commoners associations, will they be incorporated into the new associations? There is some lack of clarity.
	I am particularly pleased that there will be new money for local authorities to take on responsibility for the management of registrations. But how will commoners associations be funded, particularly for new works that will be needed, such as cattle grids, fencing and equipment? Will new money be provided? Kenfig is funded by my local authority and the CCW; it has five staff, but no funds to allow it to buy the new tractor, mower and Land Rover essential to carrying out its tasks. If that is Kenfig's experience as a statutory designated site, how will commons with no statutory protection finance themselves and move forward to tackle the damage taking place because of the neglect of some of our commons?
	There will be cost implications for local authorities in supporting the establishment of commoners associations and public inquiries. Will there be financial support for local authorities if they are brought into involvement when the associations are developed and introduced into Wales?
	There is some indication that there may be some conflict and cross-over of responsibilities between commoners associations and local access forums. There is potential for duplication in some areas of responsibility. Local access forums do not have responsibility to have regard to the public interest in relation to biodiversity, but we may find that officers with responsibility for commoners associations may well also be involved in local access forums. There seems to be an opportunity to look at how we marry some of those responsibilities so that we do not have officers and land managers having to attend two meetings rather than one.
	It will be important for commoners association meetings to be held in public. A wide range of people have an interest in the management of commons and a previous speaker referred to the importance of those with grazing rights being heard. There may also be people who have an interest in the natural history of sites who would wish to be heard and to be able to listen to debates and speak with members of the commoners associations.
	I have some concerns about the use of may in clause 45(2)(a), which deals with local authority intervention powers. It says a
	local authority may . . . take any steps to protect the land against unlawful interference,
	but to give full protection to common land where there is no registered owner, the intervention powers should be strengthened to a requirement that a local authority either must or shall take steps to protect the land from unlawful interference. Alternatively, has the Minister looked into the local commons association having that power and responsibility?
	The requirement to take action could be particularly relevant in an area of common land in my constituency where there are problems with off-road biking and the use of 4x4 vehicles. Powers might be taken under clause 31 which deals with the functions of commons associations. I would certainly like additional powers to tackle such problems, which affect a number of commons in Wales.
	The drive to establish commons associations will be led in Wales by the Welsh Assembly Government and in England by the Secretary of State. It would be helpful to consider the common land stakeholders working group report of 2003, which called for the establishment of regional advisory bodies to advise the statutory authority on whether to confirm regulations put forward by commons associations and whether reserve powers would be justified. The report also called for a non-statutory advisory body to promote good practice and provide a medium for communication between the Government and those with an interest in common land.
	I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether such bodies will be created and whether he agrees that the responsibilities would best be placed with Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds carried out a brief survey in Wales and it was felt that there was a need for an independent body to which commoners could go for advice and information. That will be critical to help commons associations to make progress.
	Commons are much loved and valued in Britain where, as the Minister rightly said, too many people believe that the title means that they are owned by the public and managed for the public good. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 brought public access to commons and the Bill will bring management which includes the public interest. It is not the solution to all the problems of commons. We cannot draw a line under the issueto do so in legislation whose history stretches back to the Norman conquest would be nonsense. What will be needed to halt biodiversity loss is a proactive approach to implementing the legislation, and funding to ensure that its effects are positive.
	I hope that the streamlining of consent systems for works on commons will remove casual abuses such as one that occurred at Kenfig during the recess, when Network Rail drove a tractor and pick-up vans over the reserve to carry out work on a fence without the agreement of the trustees, the local authority, the reserve or the CCW. Such casual abuses will not end, but new powers, new information and new bodies will have the responsibility to tackle what has been rightly described as the tragedy of the commons.
	Given the debacle of the 40-year gap between the previous legislation and the Bill, I urge the Minister to consider a requirement for an assessment of progress after five years so that we have an analysis of the improvements brought by the Bill and of its impact. After 10 years, there could be a further analysis of the effectiveness of the Bill's operation, so that we do not wait a further 40 years to rectify our mistakes but can start to move forward.
	We should not be too disheartened by the 40-year gap, however. When I was exploring the 1965 Act to see what had gone wrong and what might have led us astray, I discovered that in the same year the House discussed smoking and the banning of cigarette advertising on television. It took us 40 years to move forward on that. There were concerns about the inappropriate award of honours because the Beatles had been given OBEs. We can move forward and we can be proactive, but we need to keep track of the legislation. We need to review it and we need to know that Ministers will make sure that we do not wait 40 years before rectifying any further mistakes.

Elfyn Llwyd: Several speakers have referred to consensus across the House. There is indeed a large degree of consensusso much so that sometimes it is almost disturbing. However, like the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) who spoke very well, I shall break the consensus slightly, although only to note that after 41 years we should be allowed a reasonable time to discuss the amendments. When the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment introduced the Billreasonably and properly, as one would expect of himhe concluded that there would be many amendments to discuss in Committee. Despite the large consensus on much of the Bill100 per cent. on the need for a change in the lawI can see no justification for concluding its proceedings by next Thursday. I say that with complete sincerity, because although there was consensus in the other place, their lordships were given a considerable amount of time to discuss this important Bill.
	As was said earlier, there are more than 550 hectares of common land in England and Wales whose importance, pro rata, to the agricultural community is greater in Wales and in the north and west of England than in the south-east where much land has fallen out of agricultural use. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned rights of turbary. Those are not ancient rights that have fallen off the scale. I have neighbours who exercise rights of turbary on the mountain behind the village where I live. Another neighbour has piscary rights at a mountain lake in my community[Interruption.] I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stroud smiles at that. Such rights still exist, and it is important to give them as much consideration as biodiversity, to which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) referred. There is no doubt that that is important but many other interests need to be catered for under the Bill.
	It was said earlier that there was consensus that the 1965 Act was not as good as it might have been, and indeed that it was flawed from the beginning. It was certainly a cumbersome piece of legislation, which was often bewildering to the agricultural community and lawyers alike. On behalf of farmers in north and mid-Wales, I appeared many times before Her Majesty's commons commissioners and it was felt overwhelmingly that the procedure was unnecessarily complicated, even when rights or ownership registrations were uncontested. In contested hearings the proceedings could, and in my experience did, last for a week or longer, so the procedure was very expensive indeed. In that regard, the Act certainly was flawed from the beginning.
	Even worse, when mistakes were made, wrong registrations were usually rectified by an application to the High Court. That, too, meant huge delays, uncertainty and further worries about costs. I know of individuals who found those considerations so off-putting that they did not proceed with their applications. I hope that will be put right under the Bill.
	One example involves an enclosed piece of common land fairly high up the mountain in Merionethshire. The land has always been enclosed and used by one farm alone. No one else has used the rights, but unfortunately two other people have registered rights to graze. They cannot use the rights, because they cannot get to the landthat would involve crossing the dominant tenement in any eventbut if that ground is sold, there will be huge complication. Any means of rectifying such problems has been beyond people locally, and I had hoped that the Bill would assist in that regard, but I do not think that it does. If I am fortunateor perhaps unfortunateenough to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee, I shall develop the argument slightly and address it with the Minister in Committee.
	On my reading of clause 19, it appears that the process for amending mistaken entries is far simpler and less expensiveof course, I welcome thatbut, unfortunately, I do not think that previously incorrect registrations under the 1965 Act will be capable of review under the Bill. If I am wrong, I will gladly stand corrected. I am led to believe that that is the case because of some human rights concerns, but one must consider the human rights of those against whom adverse and incorrect registrations have been made. I hope that we can discuss that point further in due course.
	If there is no means of addressing patently wrong registrations, the Bill would appear to be a lost opportunity, because that aspect is probably the greatest and most obvious shortcoming of the 1965 Act. In large part, that was responsible for over-grazing for many years. The Country Land and Business Association points out in its helpful briefing what happens if:
	where registered rights have been overstated. This unfairness has been accentuated by the recent CAP reform and the allocation of SPS entitlements to graziers based on their registered rights with the prospects that landowners, who may also be active graziers, possibly being excluded from any entitlement where there are more rights registered than a common can physically support.
	At this juncture, it would be as well to remind ourselves of the vital nature of grazing rights to agriculture. Very often, common land borders on a farm's ffridd or in-bye land and forms an integral part of the whole farming enterprise. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) said, many farms would not be viable without such rights. Many upland sheep farms in Wales simply would not exist without such rights on common land. Therefore this is not an esoteric subject, of peripheral interest to the agricultural community. It is vital to that community, so it is also vital to people in the locality who use commons recreationally, and to biodiversity.
	There are many aspects to the Bill, and it does a reasonable job in addressing some of those balancing acts; but as this is a Second Reading debate, I shall merely comment on three or four ways in which the Bill should be improved. I note that during the Bill's passage through the other place, there were some interesting and highly informed debates that culminated in several useful amendments to the Bill.
	The first issue that I should like to flag upI shall not do so at great length because this has been referred to alreadyis the severance of grazing rights from the farms and holding to which they are attached. That came about as an unintended consequence of a decision in a leading case. Under the 1965 Act, commoners seeking to register rights had to quantify the number of animals that they were entitled to graze. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) said, figures such as 70.3 cattlewhatever that meanshave been used. In due course, those rights could be severed from the land itself.
	I agree about the explanatory notes. They are refreshingly good, and very useful indeed; whoever is responsible, perhaps the whole team, can take all the credit for them. They refer to the leading case of Bettison v. Langton in 2001, in Appeal Cases 27. In effect, the House of Lords determined that as a consequence of the quantification required by the 1965 Act, the commoner was able to dispose of rights of common independently from the land to which they were attachedor, incidentally, to sell the land and retain the rights, which has also happened frequently. That is what is meant by severance, and it damages the whole framework to allow grazing rights to be transferred to someone who might have no contact whatever with the area, and who might even have no desire to co-operate with the other commoners in preserving the common good of the land, the environment and its use.
	The general prohibition on severance in clause 9 is therefore welcome. However, that was amended in the other place, and the inclusion of an authorised severance was secured, whereby statutory commons associations can acquire rights by severance and their consent would be required for any transfer of severed rights to Natural England or the Countryside Council for Wales. That is appropriate, because no one wants to see over-grazingbut as the hon. Member for Bridgend said, no one wants to see under-grazing either, as it is equally damaging to the flora and fauna, and the environment generally. A proper balance has been achieved.
	Under paragraph 3 of schedule 1, it will be possible by ministerial order or by order of the National Assembly for Wales to suspend the general prohibition on severancein particular, where local circumstances dictate and there is strong local support and a good case for doing so. That may not be used very often, but it introduces some welcome flexibility into the equation.

Madeleine Moon: I wish to advise the hon. Gentleman that Kenfig is a prime example of a place where grazing rights can be used effectively. The Countryside Council for Wales has taken on the grazing rights at Kenfig, where grazing should be increased, but it is an open common, and there are problems with fencing following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It would be wrong to suggest that the bodies responsible for improving biodiversity and habitat management would not also recognise the importance of grazing in carrying out those tasks, and would not seek to increase grazing where it was needed.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am very much heartened by what the hon. Lady says, but I know of examples in my locality where the converse is true, and such agri-environment agreements go too far in lessening the number of sheep carried on the mountainsbut that may be by the by. None the less, I hear what she says, and I am pleased that that is so. I am sure that people who are aware of the agri-environment scene will realise that there is a need to keep a proper balance. For example, I was recently on a farm on the Berwyn mountains near Bala, where I live, and one of the problems there is that because of under-grazing, young gorse shoots are not being disposed of as they should be. That, in turn, has an effect on grouse. Of course, the whole thing is an ecosystem, so we must be aware of the need to graze responsibly, not only to do the best for the land, but to achieve the best return on the animals and generally to serve the three balancing acts to which I referred earlier. To that extent, I certainly agree with the hon. Lady.
	I wish to refer briefly to management. We should find another name for the commons associations. That is a small point, but it might be an important one in avoiding confusion, and the Minister looks as though he is taking it on board. However, the point was made earlier, and I am sure that it can be discussed further in due course. There is good reason for doing so. Most commons already have graziers associations, and if it is the wish of those associations, they should be allowed and encouraged to take on the role of a commons associationpeople may call them what they willwith as few administrative obstacles as is humanly possible. Many relevant commons graziers associations wish there to be as few obstacles as possible so that a commons association can be responsible for more than one common, where it is proper for that to happen. That would be sensible in the circumstances.
	Many of us believe that it is paramount that the main function of such an association is to protect the interests of all those whose livelihoods are reliant on the common rights. In particular, the non-business interests of those who have rights such as access should not take precedence over the interests of those whose incomes derive directly from the use of rights on the common. It is therefore essential that the majority of members of each association are drawn from the relevant business interests on the relevant commons. For example, the Farmers Union of Wales has mentioned a majority of 75 per cent.
	We had quite a discussion earlier about the make-up of the associations. I do not know whether the document that I have in my hand, an example of a draft statutory instrument, has come to me surreptitiously. I hope that the Minister has seen it, otherwise it has come to me surreptitiously. [Interruption.] He is making me rather nervous. It is entitled The West Barsetshire Commons Association Establishment Order 2006. Many Members have referred to this matter, so I hope that I am raising a point of information. Under the heading, Establishment of the Association, in article 3(2), the order states:
	  The Association shall consist of not less than 10 and not more than 12 members, of whom
	(a) three shall be appointed by the active graziers on White Moss Common from among themselves;
	(b) two shall be appointed by the active graziers on Black Moss Common from among themselves;
	(c) one shall be appointed by the active graziers on Ambridge Common from among themselves;
	(d) one shall be appointed by the commoners who are not active graziers from among themselves;
	(e) two shall be appointed by the owners of the Commons from among themselves;
	(f) one shall be appointed by the Barset National Park Authority; and
	(g) up to two may be co-opted by the Association.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman forgot Lynda Snell.

Elfyn Llwyd: I apologise. No doubt, as a community councillor, she will find her way in there somehow or other.
	Will the Minister tell me whether that is the kind of standard association that we are looking at? If so, I suggest that the balance is not quite right, but no doubt that is a matter not for Second Reading, but for Committee in due course.
	Much has been said about the registration of greens, and quite rightly so. It is an important area of law, and another area that needs significant change and simplification. We need to consider further modifications. There is a possibility that the legislation could become an effective weapon for objectors to development, once the planning process has not had the desired outcome for them. It is not unheard ofunder previous laws and currentlyfor spurious claims to be made in a last-ditch attempt to prevent development. Depending on the quality of evidence, those claims can be extremely difficult for a landowner to refute.
	I was professionally involved in a case some four years ago on behalf of a county council that wanted to develop a corner of a parcel of land. As soon as the council made its intentions knownit wanted to use the land for affordable housing, for letting and part salethe people in the locality said, No, this is a green and it always has been. Well, it never had been, but it cost many tens of thousands of pounds to prove that. Thirty or 40 people came along and each spent up to half a day in the tribunal hearing. The thing went on for about 12 or 14 days. Tens of thousands of pounds were thrown awayfor no good reason, it seems to me. We need to look again at that mechanism, to prevent that happening again.
	We need a balance. We need to ensure that where greens have been used since time immemorial they continue to be used, for all the good reasons that they have been used in the past. Equally, if a part of a green is needed for some reasonable development, that should not be objected to and stopped in its tracks, per se. There should be a better means of dealing with those conflicts, rather than the current expensive litigation procedure. We need to strike a fairer compromise between the residents of a locality and possible developments.
	My next point has already been made, so I will be brief. It is about what was referred to as the common land policy statement. There are occasions when a landowner is willing to permit the general public to have access to a piece of unfarmed land for recreation, where that would be of benefit to the community. There is now great anxiety among people who would be willing to do that. I could name names from my own locality. People are happy for that to happen, but they are concerned that over time, it will become a right capable of registration and that the land could become something akin to a green. Paragraph 50 of the common land policy statement 2002 says clearly that that will be legislated for in primary legislation, and that when the landowner makes it clear that people have limited recreational access, that is not to be transferred into a public right. The highway example given earlier is the same. Many of us are disappointed that that provision is not in the Bill. It would have freed up more access for the public, because landowners would not be concerned that public rights would be created, adverse to their own. I hope that even at this late stage, with a very limited Committee stage, that matter can be revisited.
	In general, despite some of the things that I said earlier, this is a good Bill, which is overdue. However, other hon. Members and I have raised points that need to be addressed. The Bill will not succeed if the additional costs that will follow are not met. I was encouraged by what the Minister said when I intervened on him at the beginning. I welcomed that response and I hope that there will be some new money available. Otherwise there will be confusion, and we will have misleading plans and, potentially, lots of litigation, which nobody wants to see being pursued unnecessarily.
	With those caveats, I welcome the Bill. If I am fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be selected for the Committee, no doubt I can raise further points at that stage.

Daniel Rogerson: I am delighted to be called to speak in the debate. It is always unfortunate to be called late, when so many of the points that I was hoping to make have been made by other hon. Members, but that is a reflection of the consensus that exists. There is a consensus that the Bill is to be welcomed, but that some issues need to be addressed in Committee, and I am sure that that will happen.
	It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon). I think I have told her in the past that my mother is from the neighbouring constituency of Ogmore, so it is good to hear so much work going on in that part of south Wales to preserve the natural environment.
	Given the name of the Bill, which will appear on the Annunciator screens around the Palace of Westminsterthe Commons BillI wondered whether we might have had more interest from hon. Members who might have thought that their livelihoods were at stake. That did not prove to be the case, but it is important that we discuss the Bill because many people's livelihoods are at stake. As hon. Members pointed out, it is 40 years since the legislation on common land was last debated, so we must get it right, as it may be a long time before the issues are debated again. I hope that hon. Members' comments, and those that I shall make, will be taken on board by the Minister in Committee.
	My constituency includes many areas of common land, including 7,000 hectares on Bodmin moor. Most of the moor therefore consists of common land, which accounts for most of the common land in Cornwall. There are many sites of archaeological significance on Bodmin moor, so land management must take account of such sites as well as the natural environment and the implications for biodiversity. Archaeologists have already raised the problems that under-grazing will cause in the management of those sites. There are ponies on Bodmin moor, as there are on other moorlands in the south-west, which adds another dimension to the management of grazing.
	Many such areas are already covered by countryside stewardship schemes, and it is important to point out that commoners' associations and groups work closely with existing agencies to ensure good stewardship of the environment. However, they are eager to undertake further work once the Bill is enacted. The common land on Bodmin moor makes a substantial contribution to agriculture and to the wider economy, and it plays a significant part in the life of rural communities on the moor, just as it does in other communities, including those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Biodiversity is an important issue, given the historic patterns of land use, and sustainable management is of interest to a wide variety of users of common land.
	Management involves private owners and, on Bodmin moor, people with grazing rights, as well as groups who are concerned to meet the challenge of preserving and enhancing the environment in an area as vital as Bodmin moor. The Government have taken a positive approach, and I welcome the Bill's presumption against the severance of common rights from land when it is sold. As hon. Members have said, common rights ought to be exercised by local people who, it is to be hoped, will be encouraged to take an interest in the management of common lands. Like many hon. Members, however, I have some concerns, as there are omissions in the Bill and other problems that I hope will be addressed in Committee.
	I am concerned that local authorities have been given increasing responsibilities to make decisions about common land, which will add to the burden on local taxpayers. I welcome the fact that the Department has allocated money for the transition period to assist with new ways of working, but it remains to be seen whether that is sufficient for local authorities to be able to deliver their new responsibilities, including responsibilities in disputes about the keeping of records on rights, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said. Some cases may take a long time to resolve, and will involve a great deal of work.
	The commons commissioners operate a system that has been criticisedno doubt, it has been frustrating for people who have had to resort to the commissioners to try to resolve problemsbut which is none the less trusted and well used. If the commissioners are abolished by the Bill, there is no alternative other than the courts, which is worrying for people involved in land management. The Bill creates new opportunities for statutory commons associations to take greater responsibility and to access resources to improve and maintain the land. However, many groups are not ready to become statutory associations. That is the biggest problem with the Bill, as much of the land is managed by smaller associationsindeed, there are some areas where there are no associations at all. Statutory associations will allow us to make progress, but it would be a shame if other areas were left behind, so I hope that amendments are tabled to encourage voluntary associations to work more effectively. We should look at ways in which they can be supported as a whole, so that they, too, can take advantage of the powers that will be given to the new statutory commons associations.
	I welcome the powers that will be given to local authorities to resolve problems with unclaimed land, including cases in which land is used in a way to which the local community objects. Such cases cannot be resolved while the ownership of the land is unclear, so I welcome the opportunities for local authorities to step in and play a role in resolving those issues. Commoners in the Bodmin moor area look forward to the opportunities that will be extended to them following the introduction of the Bill, but they are concerned about the repeal of the Commons Registration Act 1965, as they do not want an open season on rights. If Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales acquire commons rights, grazing in some areas may be reduced, so people wish to work with archaeologists and other groups to ensure that the correct level of grazing is secured and common land is maintained in the best possible way.
	There should be more explanation of the way in which new commons associations will be supported, and how they will be encouraged to fund their activities. Again, in many cases, volunteers are involved, and I would hate to think that opportunities will not be taken up because there is no support for them. I am pleased that we are considering the issues that affect common land. The Bill has been a long time coming, and many people will be watching its speedy progress in Committee. I have some concerns, as I have outlined, but I am glad that hon. Members will seek to make a contribution in Committee. I hope that the Minister has taken our concerns on board, and I look forward to the Bill's progress in Committee.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment opened the debate with his definition of common land, which involved the rights of people other than the landlord. He talked about havens for wildlife, the number of sites of special interest and the state of them. He talked, too, about the Dartmoor commoners council amendments that will be tabled in Committee, and clause 15, which applies to village greens. We welcome his acknowledgement of the need to provide certainty in Committee.
	The Minister discussed the higher-level stewardship scheme, on which I intervened, and the need to meet obligations. His remarks were well intentioned, but I suspect and fear that they are likely to create new problems in addition to solving some of the old ones. He also discussed the good and constructive scrutiny in the other place. I think that he is absolutely right, and I add my congratulations to Baroness Byford and her team on their hard work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) discussed local commons in his constituency, which are, by and large, small, and pointed out that under-grazing is a problem as well as over-grazing. He talked about village greens, deficiencies within the registers and registered rights, and he talked about severance rights and increased rights over and above existing rights. Importantly, he pointed out why Natural England needs to receive severed rights, and he talked about human rights being used as an excuse not to remove fraudulently acquired rights, although confiscation opportunities are being implemented against private landowners. I think that in Committee we will explore how much land is eligible under the 20-year rule. My hon. Friend also made a helpful point about the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs being a point of contact where people can go for co-ordination and expertise. He welcomed the Minister's funding commitment to establish electronic registers, but pointed out that DEFRA cannot take an enormous amount of pride in its track record on, for example, cattle movement and the Rural Payments Agency. Questions will obviously be asked about how much the Minister's funding commitment will cost and whether the scheme will work. The issues of fencing and of the difference between consequential and inconsequential works are also important, but my hon. Friend was right broadly to welcome the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) suggested that the Bill would have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, which was a helpful suggestion given that the Minister has said that the Government want to make a number of amendments in Committee. He also expressed concern about the eating away of small amounts of common land, which I am not so sure aboutwhen he said that he did not understand some of the detail, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) kindly helped him.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) has no common rights and is unlikely to get anyknowing his interest in farming, I feel for himand he talked about the importance of town and village greens. He has been chairman of the Brecon Beacons national park, and he discussed the difficulties caused by over and under-grazingpeople do not always realise that over and under-grazing depend on the weather, and he will know that the grass has not been growing particularly well this year. He also discussed the abolition of the commons commissioners, which is a serious loss, and we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. I hope that he was more right about the loss of commoners than he was about ploughing up Hay bluff. The votes on the commons, which will decide who gets what and how much they get, have been discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because there is a serious concern about how the commons will be managed.
	The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) welcomed the Bill, which was no great surprise. He talked about village greens, but he seemed to fall into the local pitfall trapwhat is good in some areas is not good in others. He spoke passionately about village greens in his constituency, and it took my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) to point out that although his view is attractive in Pudsey, it creates problems in other parts of the UK. As always, the key is getting the balance right, and I hope that we achieve that with this Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made an excellent speech. He attacked the programme motion and talked about the 1235 Act and the problems therein. He spoke with passion about the problems with common land and, in particular, errors and false entitlement. He welcomed the provisions to clear up anomalies, which, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, will make a tremendous difference, especially when constituents' drives, access or homes are on common land. At the moment, there is no way to unlock that problem, and we want the Bill to clarify the situation. My hon. Friend also discussed the distance that sheep stray, the fences that have been put up and that are now due to be taken down and the need for balance and judgment. His constituency contains a 20 square mile common, and it was clear that he knows exactly what he is talking about. He questioned whether the National Trust Act 1971 should be changed without proper scrutiny, and I agree with him that we should tread carefully. I enjoyed his excellent and informed speech.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) light-heartedly discussed the length of time the Bill spent in another place. He then made a joke about the Commons, and he was doing really well until the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) got all excited and intervened on the theft of state schools. At that point, the hon. Member for Stroud became misty-eyed about rural socialism. He is normally very good on these issues, but this time he got a bit muddledperhaps his emotional moment on rural socialism caused him to forget his own constituent's name. By the time he got to Minchinhampton common, he was even more confusedhe discussed a common fit for purpose, which confused me. He clarified his position by calling for genuine democracy in the management of commons, which is, again, a unifying point on both sides of the House. He is also frustrated by the Woodland Trust issue. Finally, he discussed the length and complexity of the Bill, but his entertaining speech lasted for about 20 minutes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) has common and grazing rights, so he knows what he is talking about. He discussed the problem of unregistered land, which is very important, and welcomed the council's role in overseeing the registration of such land. He then mentioned his 43.3 cattlehe is a superb breeder of Charolais cattle, but even he cannot breed 0.3 of a cow, and I am sure that the Minister will sort out that extraordinary anomaly when he has a moment. He also discussed the RPA fiasco and IT projects, the escalating cost of which is causing growing worry on both sides of the House. He talked about the conflict between people who are concerned about development on village greens, people who want to see more affordable housing and people who own land. He also talked about the protection of landowners' interests in the Highways Act 1980, the value of land, which is the key to the problem, and the transfer of land to public ownership. His constituency case involving the Glebe land in Clun, which was owned by the Church and accessed by villagers, was skilfully handled, because he avoided getting stuck in the firing line. He also discussed concern about the entity that may be imposed to run common landagain, almost every hon. Member who spoke mentioned that worry. He talked about English Nature and grazing opportunities being reduced under clause 31, which will weaken the livestock sector.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) pointed out the need for legislation to rectify the fault lines, but I am not sure whether we rectify all problems when we introduce new legislation, because in rectifying some problems we may create others. Although the history of nature reserves in her constituency was fascinating, I think that there is a problem with Welsh SSSIs. I agreed with her when she said that she does not want Wales to be behind in anything, and particularly not in such a wonderful thing as biodiversity.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend also discussed off-road motor cycling, which is another subject that I care about. When we discuss common land, we must be careful whom we discriminate against in addition to whom we try to protect. Motor cyclists also have a right to enjoy common land, providing that they do not cause damage or distress to other people. She also suggested that the Bill should be reviewed after five years.

Roger Williams: Will the repeal of the Law of Property Act 1925, which, as far as I understand it, precludes motor vehicles from going more than 10 m from a right of way or road, make common land more vulnerable to off-road activities?

Bill Wiggin: Most of the issues to do with off-roading are covered by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, so although that is a relevant point, it is not covered by this Bill.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend suggested that the Bill be reviewed after five years and then after 10 years. I thought that that was an interesting and important suggestion but not one that inspired a great deal of confidence. We should try to get the Bill right here and now.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy talked about the Bill's importance to Wales. He mentioned the problems of complexity in the old rules. His contribution was extremely helpful, because he has been involved in the legal side of this for a long time. He referred to enclosed common land up a mountain, with registered commoners who cannot access their rights yet have a claim should that common land ever be sold. The nub of his argument is that if we can unlock the complexities of this legislation, it will have a knock-on benefit for everybody who enjoys, lives off or uses common land. He talked about severance of grazing rights and welcomed the ending of that practice. He rightly referred to the balance that is essential as regards over-grazing or under-grazing, and the resulting gorse that may grow if that is got wrong.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) also made some important points. It is frustrating to speak last when many matters have already been covered by other Members.
	I am concerned about the cost of the legislation, the brunt of which will fall on local authorities and is estimated at between 5 million and 9.5 million. The Government have talked about extra funding, but I do not think that it was that much. If I am wrong, I am more than happy to give way to the Minister so that he can tell us how much he is going to give.
	I can foresee potential pitfalls with the electronic register; I have already mentioned the Government's track record on that.
	On the substance of the Bill, there are several concerns regarding the roles of the statutory commons associations that will be established under clause 26. As we have heard, situations may arise whereby voluntary bodies such as the Dartmoor commoners council could find its activities curtailed by the presence of a commons association. The National Farmers Union has expressed concerns over the confusion that could arise from statutory commons associations and non-statutory and voluntary groups wanting to care for common land. It is not clear how the membership of those statutory commons associations is to be constituted. No one would want certain interest groups or charities to dominate such groups at the expense of others. We must get that balance right.
	When looking at the role of statutory commons associations, we must also consider the rights of the landowners. This seems to be a fairly inflammatory matter for some Members of the House, but 80 per cent. of common land is owned privately, and it does not rest well with human rights legislation for a statutory body to be able to impose on a landowner certain designs and plans on that land with which the owner, or other interested parties, may not be comfortable. We must have a fair resolution mechanism whereby conflicts between the landowner and statutory commons associations over the use of the land can be dealt with within the framework of the Bill.
	The issue of executive powers has already been taken up, but it is worth reiterating with regard to commons associations. The National Trust has expressed concerns that under clauses 36(2)(e) and 44(2), a future Government may take away some of its powers and hand them over by ministerial order to a statutory commons association without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny.
	Another concern is the retrospective nature of clause 15. As has been said here and in the other place, that could affect planning decisions and often much-needed planning developments. It is also unclear what constitutes a
	significant number of local inhabitants
	and, for that matter, who counts as a local inhabitant. Would two people walking their dogs on the same patch of grass every day for 20 years be able to prevent a housing development by having it designated as a town green?
	Those are important matters of definition and clarity that the Bill does not fully address at the moment. However, we are in favour of the Bill and will work throughout the Committee stage to make it much better.

Jim Knight: I thank all Members who have taken part in this constructive debate on an important, yet somewhat technical, Bill. I am sure that it is no coincidence that it was planned to be the first Second Reading debate after the Easter recess, which has meant that our minds are fresh to tackle the more technical elements of common land law, which, as we have heard, goes back to 1235.
	When I was first briefed on the Bill, I was given a glossary of terms that I might encounter. It is redolent of an earlier age. Who could fail to be fascinated by an ancient manorial system of rights of pannage and piscary, of house-bote and hedge-bote, and of rights of pasture that were regulated under the principles of levancy and couchancy? We may learn more of these things in Standing Committee, perhaps even from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
	I am delighted that the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment. The fact that it was a Conservative manifesto commitment from the 1987 election should not detract from its merits. Indeed, the Bill has attracted widespread support from all parties in the House, as well as support throughout England and Wales. I am particularly grateful for hon. Members' comments about the officials who have done so much work on the Bill, particularly the explanatory notes.
	The debate has reflected the consensus while raising a plethora of technical points. I could go through all those in some detail, but as I spent 10 years in classified directory advertising as a profession, I am looking forward to the Adjournment debate and want to give it proper time. Nevertheless, I will dwell on a few issues.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) raised a series of technical points, most of which will be dealt with in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who said that 12 per cent. of common land in England and Wales is in his constituency, spoke with some knowledge and authority. I look forward to his being able to lease some rights, which might satisfy his desire to be active in common land.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) spoke with his usual authority, and his passion for biodiversity and town and village greens shone through. I will chase up the correspondence from Mrs. Perry for him.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) spoke, again with passion, about the green application for Yeadon Banks. I must not comment on that particular case, but he is right to pay tribute to the role that just a few volunteers play in putting such applications together. We are grateful to them. The Trap Grounds case that he and many other hon. Members mentioned should reach a conclusion shortly. That may inform what we decide to do on Report, depending on what is said. I hope that the measures in the Bill will be sufficient to sort those matters out. I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend, as he requested.
	The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) discussed the programme motion. I have to tell him that the amount of time that we propose for the Committee stage has been agreed on both sides of the House, including his own. In fact, we have extended the amount of time from that which his hon. Friends proposed. I hope that he will be satisfied with that.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about some of the problems of under-grazing on the uplands. I listened carefully to his remarks and I hope he will respond to the consultation on the England rural development programme, with the discrete consultation on uplands, so that we can hear the experience of his constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) recalled the Diggers and the Levellers. He wanted conflict, but with his usual charm and charisma, some of that conflict ebbed away magically as he spoke.
	The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) spoke with knowledge, informed by his interests, which he declared. I am pleased that he welcomes the proposal in the Bill that the commons registration authorities should be the local authorities, and that registration will not be handled centrally. If I have time, I shall say a little more about the electronic register.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) spoke about the target for 95 per cent. of SSSIs to be in favourable condition by 2010. I should advise her that that includes those that are improved or recovering, which might assist progress in Wales. Here in England, we are up to 72 per cent., which puts us on course to meet the 2010 target. My hon. Friend spoke with passion and in some detail about the Kenfig site in her constituency and showed the importance of protecting commons, which we are seeking to do in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was unsure whether he wanted to serve on the Committee that will consider the Bill. I am unsure, too, whether I want him to serve on the Committee. No doubt he would bring great expertise to it, which at times, as the Minister being scrutinised, I might not welcome, but on balance, it would probably be a good idea. He raised a case that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) mentioned in his summing up. If the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy writes to me about it, I shall be happy to look into it. I was grateful to him for brandishing the draft strategy instrument, because my officials then passed it on to me.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) spoke about livelihoods. The Bill is about livelihoods, of course. It is also about matters of life and death for some of the biodiversity on our common land. That is why we think it important to tackle these issues.
	I shall deal more substantively with one or two of the key points made. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked why the Bill does not allow the correction of mistaken, fraudulent or excessive registration of rights under the 1965 Act. That query was repeated by others. We have listened to the views of stakeholders. We recognise that many rights registered in the 1960s were excessive or inflated and have led to problems, but we believe, in common with most stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union and the Moorland Association, that we must move on, and that re-opening those registrations 45 years later would not be helpful in achieving better management of our commons. I am sure we will debate the matter further in Committee, but if the result of that inflation of rights is over-grazing, we hope that the formation of statutory commons associations will tackle it.
	The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the registration of land as a green breaches human rights. We will hear more when we get the judgment on the Trap Grounds case. He asked about the cost of commons registers. The Bill enables commons registration authorities to convert their own registers to electronic form. It is important that that power should be available as we move into an electronic age, but it is not a power for DEFRA to create a national electronic register. It is for the authorities to do that. Like many other features of the registration authorities, we will start with pilots in areas where there are significant amounts of commons to make sure that they work. We will fund that, learn from it and roll out best practice elsewhere.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood asked why there was no pre-legislative scrutiny. As I said, the measure was a manifesto commitment back in 1987 and much has been said about the time it has taken to get a slot for it. We now have the slot and we shall use it to the best of our ability. Pre-legislative scrutiny might have disappointed the high expectation for action among stakeholders.
	I could continue going through various points but I believe that we will cover them well in Committee. Again, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. Hon. Members referred to the importance of biodiversity, which my hon. Friend the Minister emphasised in his opening comments. The Bill will help common land to be sustainably managed, thus benefiting not only SSSI commons but all common land. It will help improve biodiversity and contribute to our domestic and international targets.
	Biodiversity is important for our national sense of well-being. It is a resource for recreation, tourism and education. It provides the vital ecosystems that we all need to survive. It regulates our climate, provides clean water, air, fuel, food and medicines. It is also good for businessto keep my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who is present, interested. It helps create thriving, sustainable communities by providing employment and generating revenue. It is estimated that activities connected with the management of the natural environment support nearly 300,000 jobs in England and contribute 6.5 billion in gross value added to the economy.
	The Government's commitment to biodiversity informs the need for the Bill, but it is also important in its own right. Legislation on commons does not come along often and we have an obligation to ensure that the Bill makes good use of a rare opportunity to help protect and conserve our common lands for current and future generations. I believe that the measure does that and I therefore commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

COMMONS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Commons Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 27th April 2006.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.[Mr. Watts.]
	The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 102.

Question accordingly agreed to.

COMMONS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commons Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

CLASSIFIED DIRECTORY ADVERTISING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Tony Cunningham.]

Martin Salter: I am surprised at the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). Only a few moments ago, at that very Dispatch Box, he expressed great interest in the fascinating subject of classified directory advertising. We have checked his antecedents. From 1991 until 2000I thinkhe worked for Dentons directories. We can only conclude that he had no intention of misleading the House, and merely decided that a lifetime in directory advertising was probably enough for any human being.
	I am pleased to have secured this debate on behalf of the employees of Yell Limited, whose headquarters are based in Reading. Yell is a successful company with a 660 million turnover in the United Kingdom. It employs about 1,000 people in two offices in Reading, where it has operated for nearly 20 years. I am even more pleased that my old friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe)the Minister responsible for consumer affairsis to reply to the debate.
	I have a high regard for my hon. Friend, not least on the basis of my experience of him when he was a leading light in the trade union group of Labour Members of Parliament. I know for sure that if a group of workers in his constituency felt similarly threatened by the actions of the Competition Commission, he would not hesitate to take up cudgels on their behalf in his capacity as a constituency Member. That is why I am certain that he will take careful note of the representations I have received from the trade unions at Yell as well as from the management teamin particular, from Monica Charles, assistant branch secretary of the Communication Workers Union, and Andy Neatham of the Yell branch of Connect. I am also particularly indebted to Richard Duggleby of Yell for taking the time to talk me through aspects of this complex issue.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend will respond directly to the matters that I shall raise, and will not simply read out a dry briefing note from his very talented officials, who have a way with the English language to which the rest of us can only aspire. I want him to bear in mind three points following an encounter which I assure him will not continue until 10.30 pm.

Stephen Pound: Shame.

Martin Salter: My hon. Friend clearly wishes the debate to continue for longer. I am sure that any intervention from him will achieve precisely that objective.
	These are the issues that I want the Minister to bear in mind. First, what problems does the Competition Commission's inquiry into classified directory advertising seek to solve, given that directories such as the excellent Yellow Pages are free to consumers, and that advertising rates are falling faster than the current price cap demands? What is the problem? Secondly, has the Competition Commission not recognised that there is now something called Google? As the man said, the internet has changed everything. People no longer need to advertise exclusively in classified directories, as almost every aspect of human knowledge is available on the internet. Thirdly, why does the Competition Commission appear to want to legislate for yesterday, rather than addressing problems that will confront the marketplace tomorrow or in years to come?
	The market for classified directory advertising may not strike everyone as one of the most important subjects for public debate, but for some reason it has become a subject of almost obsessive interest to the competition authorities in the UK, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Commission and its predecessor, the Monopolies and Mergers Commissionalthough, interestingly, that obsessive interest does not appear to be shared by their counterparts elsewhere in Europe.
	I make it absolutely clear that I have no declarable interest in the subject. I have no registered position or shareholding in any company that is active in the sector. My interest relates primarily to the fact that the market leader in the sector, Yell Group plc, is based in Reading and the prolonged inquiry by the Competition Commission is taking up a considerable amount of the company's time when it could otherwise be getting on with running its business.
	The OFT first referred the UK classified directory advertising industry to the Competition Commission's predecessor, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in March 1995a long time before this Government took office. In November that year, the MMC submitted its report and recommendations on various new undertakings, notably price controls, to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Ian Lang. In March 1996, the DTI accepted the MMC's proposed undertakings, while the OFT was charged with monitoring their effectiveness.
	Between 2000 and 2001, the OFT undertook a further study into the market and recommended to the DTI that the 1996 undertakings should be modified somewhat, chiefly by further tightening the price controls on Yellow Pages. The DTI accepted the advice, but suggested that the OFT should review the relevant undertakings again in 2005, with a view to having any new measures in place by 1 January 2006. We are now well past 1 January 2006.
	On 3 November 2004, under the somewhat unlikely headline OFT to review classified directory advertising and opium derivatives, the OFT issued a press release announcing the further review. Disappointingly, the headline turned out to refer to two separate cases, rather than an unusual instance of market convergence. In April 2005, the OFT decided to refer the whole subject back to the Competition Commission for another full investigation. The commission initially indicated that it expected to complete its inquiry by summer 2006, but the timetable has slipped several times, and the commission now does not plan to publish its report until September 2006, and perhaps not until April 2007. Not only would that be well past the DTI's original target of having any new measures in place by 1 January 2006, but it would break all known records for the longest, or, perhaps, slowest, competition inquiry yet undertaken by either the Competition Commission, or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
	The cause of the drawn-out obsession of the UK competition authorities with classified directory advertising is something of a mystery. A search of the parliamentary online database normally brings up questions asked by hon. Members on almost any subject, but there is virtually nothing on this issue. A few trade associations and advertising groups have given evidence to the current inquiry, as one would expect, but small businesses, many of which are regular users of classified advertising, appear to be unconcerned. Not a single one was chosen to give evidence to the current inquiry, and nor has the Federation of Small Businesses submitted any views to the Competition Commission.

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend says that small and medium-sized enterprises may not have expressed concern, but many in my constituency have expressed concern that what they think of as an absolutely vital tool for bringing their products to market appears to be threatened. Will my hon. Friend tell us how on earth Yell Group is managing to retain its renowned high standards in the face of such uncertainty, difficulty and diversion of scarce resources?

Martin Salter: As I said earlier, Yell Group and Yellow Pages itself are providing advertising rates that are lower than the price cap demands. The operation is extremely healthy, and there is a complementary internet service, yell.com. The competition inquiry itself has not yet affected Yell Group's profitability and nor has it directly threatened the employment opportunities of my constituents. However, the period of uncertainty is doing no one any favours, not least the Competition Commission. Hon. Members and Parliament, to which the commission is ultimately responsible, would expect the commission to be addressing real problems, not made-up, theoretical problems that belong to a bygone age. I thank my hon. Friend for his most welcome support.
	Consumer groups appear equally unconcerned about the matter. The only reference to their position is a transcript on the Competition Commission website of a short interview conducted with Which?the Consumers Associationin which it argues that the present CC inquiry was probably unnecessary. That is significant. I have huge regard for Which?, and must declare that my wife works for it. It is universally regarded as an effective champion of consumer issues and consumer choice. However, Which? does not recognise the need for the inquiry.
	No more than 30 organisations of various kinds have given evidence to the Competition Commission's inquiry in addition to the main principals in the market, such as Yell, Thomson Directories and British Telecom. By the normal standards of industry inquiries by the commission, that is an exceptionally low level of submissions. It is also noticeable that many of the submissions that have been made are in fact quite positive about the current state of the market and also quite positive about the service provided by Yellwhich answers the point made by my hon. Friend. So the question remains: why have the OFT and the commission devoted such an extraordinary amount of time to this subject, when neither the main users of classified advertisingsmall businessesnor ordinary consumers have any particular concerns?
	One might imagine that, having spent a year on this subject, the commission has perhaps been engaged in some deep, original thinking. Unfortunately, judging by the only substantive document that it has published to date, the opposite seems to be the case. The commission's interestingly titled Emerging Thinking paper, published a few weeks ago, is depressingly unoriginal and it suggests that the commission's thinking on this subject has not moved on much beyond the conclusions reached by its predecessor, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, back in 1995 under the Conservatives. So much has changed in the intervening years.
	At that time, the MMC took the view that Yellow Pages was held in high regard by most advertisers and users, that many advertisers did not want to see a proliferation of alternative providers, but that action was needed to keep prices low. After considering and putting to one side the somewhat extreme option of breaking up the company, this led to the price controls on Yell that remain in place today. The MMC recognised that such a course of action could, ironically,
	damage existing or future competition
	by making it more difficult for other firms seeking to enter the market from being able to compete on price, a point recognised by Which? in its recent comments. The MMC therefore set the price formula at a relatively modest level. Despite that, in 2001, the OFT chose to tighten the price control formula on the grounds that other firms were unlikely to enter the market in any event.
	The OFT was wrong in its assumptions. Since 2001, there have in fact been major new entries into the market, most notably by Yell's former parent company, British Telecom, but also by other publishers, such as the Trinity Mirror Group. In addition, the huge growth in the use of the internet for directory inquiry searches for all kinds of services is already affecting the traditional printed directory business and will clearly make a huge impact in the future.
	Despite all those changes, the commission, in its Emerging Thinking paper appears to have ignored or discounted those developments. Even though competition regulators are meant to be forward looking in their analysis, the commission has so far effectively dismissed the internet, portraying it as a minor side issue and somehow not directly relevant to the printed directory advertising market on which it has been focusing its inquiries for many years, at considerable public expense. It is as if the commission regards the market as virtually unchanged since 10 years ago, so that the previous MMC report from 1996 can be dusted off and republished anew.
	Particularly bizarre is the commission's suggestion that BT's re-entry into the market, which surely must be considered as significant, can be discounted as unique, on the grounds that other companies lack its size or brand image. Yet one would have thought that companies such as Vodafonelarger than BTand Google, which is the UK's most popular search engine, clearly have both the size and the brand image to enter the market if they wished to do so.
	So far, the Competition Commission appears to be adopting a circular argumentthat price controls currently in place may discourage competition but are necessary because there is insufficient competition. It seems that evidence that the extent of the competition has grownas it clearly has in recent yearsmust be discounted, as it does not fit in with the commission's preconceptions. Frankly, that is the analysis of the madhouse.
	The Competition Commission's attitude is simply not good enough. It reminds me of the famous remark allegedly made by a member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when the competition authorities first investigated the beer industry in the 1980s. That industry is well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, and to me, given that the Courage brewery is based in my constituency. The MMC member is alleged to have uttered the golden words that something was
	all very well in practice, but how will it work in theory?
	Competition policy is meant to be based on evidence rather than preconceived theories, and on forward-looking analysis rather than old reports and studies from decades ago. The growing competition in the market for classified directory advertising suggests that prices controls are outmoded, and both competitor companies such as Thomson Directories, and consumer organisations such as Which?, have taken a similar view in their evidence.
	These days, price controls are not generally used, except for essential utility services such as water, gas and electricity. The case for keeping them, at a time when Yell's market share has been steadily declining and when printed directories form only part of the wider market for information services, seems very weak indeed. The Competition Commission should take more seriously the case for removing price controls as, almost certainly, that would lead to more competition, not less.
	Overall, the market is dynamic and changing, with a high level of user satisfaction. It does not have the obvious characteristics that would call for heavy-handed regulation. If Yell were an old fashioned monopoly that obliged reluctant people to buy its products, instead of being a company that provides a good and popular service, there might be a case for 1970s-style price controls. In fact, the company is well run, and has done well since being decoupled from BT in 2001.
	The proof that Yell's success is due more to good business management than to its strong market share is the fact that it has done so well in the US and other markets. Far from being the incumbent, it has generally been the challenger overseas. That suggests that product innovation and the maintenance of generally good relations with customers can still pay dividends.
	It must also be acknowledged that the Competition Commission is only at the emerging thinking stage of its inquiry, and that no final decisions have been taken yet. I am pleased to tell the House that, when the commission's chief executive realised that I had secured this debate, he wrote to me make that very point.
	The Competition Commission's thinking may have moved on over the past few months, but to date the story has not been encouraging. There have been indications that members of its panel may not have engaged fully with issues raised in the course of the inquiry, preferring to leave matters largely to administrative staff. They, in turn, appear to have relied heavily on work done 10 years or more ago. That is utterly indefensible.
	Despite its supposed commitment to transparency, the Competition Commission has tried to hide delays to the timetable by pasting up new deadlines on its website without acknowledgement or public announcement. That is simply unacceptable.
	Moreover, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the Department for Trade and Industry is also partly responsible in this matter. It is responsible directly, because it was previously the source of final decisions in competition investigations and yet has allowed this relatively small industry to become subject to endless regulatory investigations and a series of heavy-handed, outmoded and probably unnecessary undertakings.
	The Department is also responsible indirectly because, although no longer responsible for the final decision in competition matters, it remains responsible for the publishing sector yet has failed to submit any evidence to the current inquiry. The result has been a seemingly self-perpetuating series of regulatory inquiries into an industry about which there have been few, if any, complaints or concerns and with which everyone, by and large, seems to be perfectly happy. When he replies to the debate, I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to acknowledge that the DTI need not feel constrained by the actions of his Conservative predecessor who started this whole sorry episode in 1995.
	Given the Competition Commission's increasingly poor time-keeping, we must query whether Ministers were right to relinquish their powers over its timetables for such inquiries. Where previously it had to request permission from the Department of Trade and Industry for an extension to its timetable, it now simply asks itself. Whereas before the Enterprise Act 2002I stand guilty here, as I loyally voted for itmost Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries took around three months, even the simplest Competition Commission inquiry today takes around six. Others take much longer.
	The National Audit Office recently criticised the Office of Fair Trading for taking too long over its cases and failing to prioritise properly. To its credit, the OFT has largely accepted those criticisms and promised to rectify the position. Given how long the Competition Commission now takes over some of its cases, including the inquiry into classified directory advertising, there may be a case for the NAO conducting a similar investigation into its work. I give notice that I will, if necessary, personally approach the NAO to ask it to shine more light on the workings of the Competition Commission.
	I understand that the Competition Commission has a current high-profile inquiry into the proposed merger of the booksellers Waterstone's and Ottakar's. I note that it has placed great weight on consumers using the internet to buy books through Amazon.com and the like. That is a factor, the commission says, in keeping the price of books competitive. I hope that the commission will realise that the internet effect is also present in the case of classified directory advertising, and I hope that its panel will think carefully about the evidence it has received, which frankly does not support the emerging thinking document published previously.
	Once the case is over, I hope that the DTI will reconsider whether lessons can be learned about the way in which such inquiries are conducted, in terms not just of the timetable but the substance. Perhaps it might encourage a peer review exercise similar to those that take place in other cases. It is noticeable that while every country has some form of yellow pages, and while the European Union market for directory services has long been open to competition in line with directives initiated by the European Commission, no competition authority in another EU member state has found it necessary to mount such a prolonged series of inquiries into the industry, with such potentially destablising effects.
	I am pleased to have had an opportunity to highlight an issue of considerable importance to my constituency. I, and many others await the provisional findings of the Competition Commission inquiry into classified directories next month. I trust that they will be based on evidence and hard facts, and not on some outdated theory from another age, an age before the internet and the market entry of such significant players as BT, Google, Yahoo and so on. The Minister knows that I shall continue to pursue the issue with considerable vigour, and I await his response with great interest.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) on securing a debate that I see as very important. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issues that he raised. I, too, am surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, our hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) was not able to stay to give us the benefit of the skills gained from his long experience of working for Dentons Directories, but I understand that he had a previous commitment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) for his intervention because I know that the issue is important to his constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West raised the issue because, as he said, Yell's headquarters is in his constituency and is an important provider of jobsalmost 900, I think he said. He paid tribute to the work of the Communication Workers Union, Connect and Yell itself in raising the issue with him as the constituency Member. Clearly, there are many concerns.
	I recently received a letter from my hon. Friend and am pleased that he has already had a response from the Competition Commission. I, too, shall send him a written response shortly.
	My hon. Friend raised a number of issues, but he knows that I cannot intervene directly in many matters because of the rules of the competition framework that we have established. Where I can, I shall respond to his points. I also give him a commitment that, if he is not satisfied with my response, I shall be happy to meet a delegation from his constituency if that is helpful.
	The UK competition framework has established the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission as independent statutory bodies and they take decisions based purely on competition considerations, unaffected by any political agenda or intervening factors, allowing experts and independent competition bodies to take decisions on mergers and markets. With that independence comes responsibility. The Competition Commission has a statutory duty to consult widely on its interim findings and to ensure that its members reach the right decisions. Independent competition authorities are a key benefit introduced under the Enterprise Act 2002 regime and are a key factor in the recognition of the OFT and the Competition Commission as world class. I know that my hon. Friend has doubts about the competence of both bodies but, as the Minister with responsibility for competition affairs, I can assure him that the UK is a world-class leader. Members on both sides of the House recognise the benefits of the revised structure that we have set up.
	The Office of Fair Trading may make a reference to the Competition Commission when it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that one or more features of a market prevent, restrict or distort competition in the UK. The Department of Trade and Industry cannot overrule or influence a decision by the OFT to make a market investigation reference. As required by the Enterprise Act, the OFT consulted on its proposal to refer the classified directory advertising services market before making the reference to the Competition Commission. Its consultation revealed no substantive evidence to change its mind about making a reference.
	My hon. Friend referred to the timetable. The Competition Commission aims to offer best value for money, reaching the right decision in the shortest period of time while following fair and transparent procedures. It does not have a free mandate on setting or extending its timetables for market investigations. There is a statutory maximum period of two years with no possibility of extension. The commission's rules of procedure require it to have an administrative timetable for the major stages of a review. It aims to complete its investigations well within the two-year maximum period. In the case of the classified directory advertising services inquiry, the commission hopes to complete the investigation well within the two-year statutory deadline.
	There are two main reasons why the Competition Commission's timetable for market investigations under the provisions of the Enterprise Act is longer than its monopoly investigations under the Fair Trading Act 1973. The group of members presiding over an inquiry has to be more transparent in its thinking during the course of an inquiry and the Competition Commission is now responsible for the determination and negotiation of remedies if an adverse effect on competition finding is reached. Increased transparency involves publishing more documents and providing parties to our inquiries with the opportunity to influence the commission's thinking well before the release of the final report.
	The Competition Commission keeps its procedures under constant review. It will see if anything can be done to speed up the time frame while following statutory requirements. It has recently completed its first Enterprise Act market investigationinto store card credit servicesso this is an opportune time to consider how it investigates markets.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the emerging thinking document. The group of members working on the CDAS inquiry published their emerging thinking document on 24 January 2006. It provides parties with an opportunity to study the group's evolving thoughts and to submit evidence in support of or against them. By the time the group publishes its emerging thinking, it will already have consulted widely on the key competition issues. The thinking is preliminary and it is possible that new evidence will come to hand that will significantly influence the group's decision before the publication of provisional findings and, of course, the final report.

Martin Salter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for directly responding to the points that I have raised, but he should bear it in mind that the evidence provided to the Competition Commission in this interminable inquiry contains nothing new whatever, so if the commission is to produce a change of direction in its provisional findings, it will need to acknowledge the evidence that already exists.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am trying to describe the procedural way in which the Competition Commission operates, but we have heard his contribution this evening and I am sure that the Competition Commission will hear exactly what he is saying. Indeed, the letter that he received from the Competition Commission explains how it may need to learn from some of the lessons of the case, which, as he says, seems to have spanned the change in the structures, which is one of the problems that he and his constituents and the company have faced.
	We are trying to introduce into the Competition Commission regime the need to consult parties during both merger and market investigations. The Competition Commission publishes as much information as possible on the inquiry website, having regard to the fact that confidential commercially sensitive information needs to be kept confidential. It actively seeks views from interested parties by placing advertisements in relevant newspapers and trade journals, undertaking surveys and directly approaching key consumers, competitors and relevant trade organisations for evidence.
	The Competition Commission invites key parties for oral hearings to present their views on competition issues. During the classified directory inquiry, it commissioned two in-depth surveys of businesses that advertise or have recently stopped advertising in classified directories. The group of Competition Commission members appointed to an inquiry hold complete responsibility for the procedures followed on inquiries and the decisions reached. Members are fully engaged with staff over the course of an inquiry and are present at the vast majority of hearings with the main and third parties involved in an inquiry, so is incorrect to question the control that staff have over members' decisions.
	The Competition Commission's chairman, Peter Freeman, has widespread experience in competition. Before his appointment as chairman in December 2005, he had been deputy chairman since May 2003. Before joining the Competition Commission, Peter was head of the European Community and competition law practice at the international law firm Simmons and Simmons.
	The Competition Commission has substantial powers to remedy an adverse effect on competition, including changing the structure of a market by requiring companies to divest themselves of parts of their business. In exercising those powers, the Competition Commission needs to be sure that it reaches the right decisions, which requires in-depth economic analysis into matters such as market features, dynamics occurring in the market and incentives for firms to act under certain market conditions.
	It is not for Ministers to decide whether action is necessary when we have put in place a well-established, independent and rigorous competition framework, but I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has raised. I hope that he will take from my comments this evening that we take this matter seriously and understand the effects on his constituents and the company in his constituency. I have regular meetings with the competition authorities. I am happy to raise that issue to discover what lessons can be learned, and as I said earlier, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend if he feels that that is appropriate. I am sure that all hon. Members look forward to hearing the results of the competition authorities' deliberations on this subject, and we wait with interest to see what happens.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Nine o'clock.